PREMLATA GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who have admittedly been granted licence of wholesale for sale of India Made Foreign Liquor and beer (hereinafter referred to as IMFL) in Form -I of the Bihar Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the year 2002 -05 and for the preceding four and more years, have filed the present writ application challenging the order dated 30.10.2004 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in Board Darbhanga Case Nos. 221 and 224 of 2004 to the extent of direction contained in paragraph 7(2) of the order that the period for wholesale licence to vend in IMFL shall be five years only and the case where the licensee has completed five years as on 31.3.2005 be identified and a fresh settlement be made, for quashing the consequential direction of the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna contained in letter No. 4158 dated 13.11.2004 addressed to all the District Collectors to implement the aforesaid direction and the consequential direction issued by the Collectors of Begusarai, Darbhanga, Motihari, Saran, Buxar, Bhojpur, Bhagalpur and advertisement issued by some of the Collectors in pursuance of the aforesaid direction for grant of wholesale licence for sale of IMFL by issuance of an advertisement. The copies of the said orders have been annexed as Annexure -4 and Annexure -6, Annexure -7 and Annexure -8 respectively to the writ application.

(2.) THE question involved in this case is only one, i.e. whether any period is fixed for grant of wholesale licence for sale of IMFL or the licence can be renewed for year to year without any limit.

(3.) DR . Devi Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners challenged the order of the Board of Revenue which is the main order, in pursuance of which subsequent orders have been issued on the following grounds. The Board in a litigation between the two parties to which the petitioners are not connected, cannot issue a direction without affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and on this ground alone, the direction is vitiated and the subsequent directions issued by other authorities fall on the said ground. He further submitted that the Board of Revenue has misunderstood the provisions of the Act and the Rules and accordingly, held that the wholesale licences cannot be renewed beyond five years. The licence is granted for one year and renewal is a fresh licence and as such it can be granted or renewed for unlimited period in view of the Boards Instruction No. 101(3). In this connection, he mentioned that there being no specific provision to deal with wholesale licences and the provision applicable in a case of grant of retail licence is applicable and the same is admitted from the fact that even the authorities are taking recourse to the Boards Instruction No. 101(3) which deals with retail licence and not wholesale licence. He also submitted that the case of grant of exclusive privilege and the grant of wholesale licence altogether are two different things; in case of grant of exclusive privilege, there is provision for grant of opportunity to raise objection before the grant of exclusive privilege whereas no such provision is there in case of grant of wholesale licence and the Board has wrongly relied upon Section 22 of the Act and accordingly wrongly held that for beyond five years, wholesale licence for sale of IMFL cannot be granted/renewed. He also submitted that the petitioners being ex -licensee has a legitimate expectation and that the same procedure will be valid for settlement of wholesale licence for sale of IMFL and by issuing a fresh advertisement, their legitimate expectation has been frustrated.