PREMA NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed initially for quashing the general order passed by the Excise Commissioner as contained in his Memo No. 2370 dated 16/05/1990 (Annexure 5) directing all Collector/ Deputy Commissioners not to renew the licences under the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (in short the Act) and the rules framed thereunder (in short the Rules') in respect of Ayurvedic preparations which are capable of being used as ordinarily alcoholic beverages for the year, 1990-91. A prayer was also made for declaration that the petitioner- having already made application for renewal of the licence and deposited necessary fee within the prescribed period, the licence should be deemed to have been renewed in his favour for the aforesaid period. During the pendency of the writ petition, an order has been passed on 9/08/1991 rejecting the prayer for renewal of the licence on the grounds mentioned therein, and in the circumstance, a petition for amendment was filed on 11/09/1991 for quashing the aforesaid order, a copy of which has been marked as Annexure-15.

(2.) Shorn of details, the case of the petitioner is that he made an application for grant of licence for manufacturing Ayurvedic preparation under the provisions of the said Rules. The Excise Commissioner approved the grant of licence in the name of M/s. Upma Chemical Industries, Salh (Vaishali) in respect of manufacture of Amar Sudha Rash, Mritsanjivini Sura, Mahadrakshasav, Pushpanjali (fine) and Ashwarisht specifying the respective quantities to be manufactured. The aforesaid approval was communicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise by Memo No. 1935 dated 17/04/1989 and pursuant thereto, two licences in Form No. L-1 were issued by the licensing authority on 20/11/1989 for the manufacture of the aforesaid preparations for the period ending 31/03/1990. According to the petitioner, he filed an application for renewal of licence for the period 1990-91 along with requisite fee on 17/03/1990. No order, however, was communicated. The petitioner has asserted that it is the usual practice in the Department that the licensees after deposit of the fees and forms, continue to carry on business since no orders, one way or the other, are passed or communicated in time.

(3.) This writ petition was filed on 31/07/1990 challenging the aforementioned order dated 10/05/1990. By order dated 9/08/1990, an interim order was passed by a Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner to carry on the manufacturing process giving, however, the respondents the opportunity to keep on inspecting the manufacturing process from time to time "in order to enable the petitioner to conform to the legal requirements of manufacture." In spite of the aforementioned interim order, no order one way or the other, was passed by the Excise Commissioner and thus, the petitioner continued to carry on his aforesaid business. According to him, on 4/02/1991, he filed another application along with requisite fee for renewal of the licence for the period 1991-92.