JUGALKISHORESINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The two applications involving common questions of law and fact were heard together and are being disposed of together. In C. W. J. C. No. 3869 of 1992, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing a part of the order dated 22-4-1992 (Annexure-1) issued by Respondent No 4 whereby he was informed that his licence would be renewed for the year 1992-93, if he undertakes to pay a sum of Rs. 8 lacs per month towards excise duty. In C. W. J. C. No. 4460 of 1992, the petitioner seeks for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 28-4-1992 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application whereby he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs per month by way of excise duty.

(2.) The writ petitioners of both the oases have been granted licences for sale of India made Foreign Liquor. Petitioners filed an application for renewal of the said licence for the year 1992-93 which by reason of the impugned order dated 22-4-1992 was directed to be renewed subject to the condition that the writ petitioners have to pay the aforementioned amounts of Rs. 8 lacs and Rs. 5 lacs respectively by way of minimum excise duty, failing which legal action shall be taken against them. One of the conditions mentioned therein is that the licence shall be renewed only upon grant of the aforementioned undertaking.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has questioned the aforementioned orders, inter alia, on the ground that no such condition could be imposed by the Respondent No. 4 as only the Board of Revenue in exercise of its power under Section 90 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act can issue such a direction. It has further been contended that apart from the persons named in Annexure-2, the others licensees were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and thus, the said order is discriminatory. The writ petitioner of C. W. J. C. No. 3869 of 1992 has also contended that ex facie there does not appear to be any justification as to why he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8 lacs per month whereas the other persons including the petitioner of C. W. J. C. No. 4460 of 1992 have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs per month only. Our attention was further drawn to the fact that a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 24-4-1992 passed in C. W. J. C. No. 3359 of 1992 as contained in Annexure-S to the writ application has held that a licence cannot be refused to be renewed on the ground that there has been default in the payment of excise duty,