JAINUL ABDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petitioner held a licence of the country liquor for shop No. 1 at Dehri in the district of Rohtas. He had this licence ever since the introduction of the sliding scale system introduced in the year 1948. It is his case that he, during all these years, had carried on the business and managed the shop allotted to him efficiently and to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, as a result of which his licence had been renewed year after year till 1976 -77. This renewal was granted by respondent No. 4, the Collector, Rohtas.

(2.) The petitioner states that he fell ill and was confined to bed in between 3 -4 -J976 and 7 -8 -1976, During this period the business was managed by the staff, who were directed not only to carry on the business strictly in accordance with the conditions of the licence, but also to deposit the licence fee and other charges payable to the Government under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that during his illness, Md. Mustaq Ahmad (respondent No. 5), who is his close relation came to his shop and represented that he had been authorised by the petitioner Jamul Abdin to deposit the licence fee for renewal of the licence and also to collect the same thereafter. He took the licence and in collusion with the Excise Superintendent and other officials concerned, manipulated and got the same transferred in his name. The petitioner, on getting information rushed to the Department concerned and on 20 -8 -1976 obtained certified copy of the settlement register for the year 1976 -77 and could find that by an order dated 27 -4 -1976, vide annexure 1 of this application, the Collector (respondent No. 41) had, in fact, transferred the licence in the name of respondent No. 5 Mustaq Ahmad.

(3.) The petitioner has asserted that he had never authorised respondent No. 5 to act on his behalf and he had never asked for the transfer of the licence of the shop and that the impugned order dated 27 -4 -1976, vide annexure '1' is not legal and the same has been obtained in an unauthorised and fraudulent manner.