BHARAT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This writ application has been fled for quashing the order, contained in Annexure 8 issued by the respondent - Superintendent of Excise, Rohtas, wherein he has turned down the request of the petitioner for refund of a sue of Rs. 1,78,000 to the petitioner. It appears that a bid was held for settlement of retail liquor shops for the year 1992-93 at different places within the district of Rohtas. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,06,000 on 28-3-1992 at the earnest money. It was deposited for Mehdiganj, Amratalab, Akjhar, Banjari and Bheosagar. The petitioner participated in the bid and he the highest bidder his bid was accepted and on 29-3-1992 he deposited sir months advance licence fee of Rs. 72.000 for Sheosagar shop. The petitioner also submitted his character certificate which was duly granted by responds No. 4. It appears, subsequently on 29-4-1992 respondent No. 3 cancelled the settlement of the petitioner regarding Sheosagar shop as the character certificate of the petitioner was not valid in view of the fact that he gave power of attorney to one Saheb Singh for participating in the bid for settlement of shop at Sheosagar and the said power of attorney holder was notorious criminal. The petitioner filed representation for refund of Rs. 1,78,000 but his request has been turned down by order contained in Annxure 8 as stated above. The settlement of the petitioner was cancelled not because he was found to be a person of questionable character but of the ground that the person who was authorised by the petitioner to participate in the bid, was a notorious criminal. It has not been stated that the petitions had authorised the aforesaid notorious criminal for carrying on business in tie aforesaid shop on his behalf but the power of attorney was only for a limited purpose and not for allowing him to hold power of attorney to run the business. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the settlement of the petitioner should not have been cancelled on this ground but since tit period of settlement has already expired and the petitioner has not challenge' the cancellation of settlement, the question of giving any direction regarding settlement does not arise. However, from the aforesaid facts it becomes clear that the petitioner is entitled for refund of a sum of Rs. 1,78,00.

(3.) According to the counter affidavit a some of Rs. 99,000 has already been refunded to the petitioner. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs. 79,000, the State is bound to refund to the petitioner. Accordingly we direct respondents 2 and 3 to refund the aforesaid amount of sum of Rs. 79,000 to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction this application is allowed and the order contained in Annexure 8 is quashed. Application allowed.