SHIV KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 12.7.2005 (Annexure-8) whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for renewal of the licence has been rejected.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna by order dated 18.3.2002 granted approval for grant of one additional wholesale licence to vend India made foreign liquor, hereinafter referred to 'IMFL' for the district of Begusarai. One Prem Lal Gupta challenged the same by filing a writ application before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ application, petitioner was granted the licence. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Lata Gupta v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2002 (3) PLJR 769, allowed the writ application and quashed the grant of additional licence to vend IMFL at Begusarai. As regards the validity of the grant of licence to the petitioner, this Court observed as follows : 24.-xxx As we are not approving the recommendations dated 13.2.2002 and are wishing to quash the orders passed by the commissioner, Excise and the Board of Revenue, it is not necessary for us to look into the manner in which the licence was granted by the Collector in favour of the respondent No. 6. However, we would observe that a swift action always is not a bad action. The Collector acted swiftly but that does not mean that he was acting with ulterior motives, mala fide or under the dictates of the respondent No. 6.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, petitionoer preferred appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the order sanctioning the grant of additional licence to vend IMFL in the case of Shiv Kumar Bhagat v. The State of Bihar and Ors. and set aside the order of this Court. As regards the validity period of the licence granted to the petitioner it observed as follows : 22. The counsel for Respondent 5 then submitted that the matter has become infructuous since the licence granted to the appellant was only valid till 31.3.2003. The period of the licence having run out, there was nothing left to be decided in this appeal, which also has become infructuous. This submission is also misconceived. So far as the grant of wholesale licence to vend IMFL is concerned, under the Rules the same may be granted for any number of years not exceeding five years, as the Board may decide in each case. It is not as if each year a fresh notice is issued for the grant of wholesale licence. In fact, respondent 5, as admitted by her, holds a wholesale licence since the year 1984, and the same is being renewed from time to time. In these circumstances, there is no justification for the argument that the period for for which the licence was issued to the appellant has run out and the appeal has become infructuous.