AJANTATRADERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of the interpretation of Rule 106 of the Bihar Excise Rules (compendiously the Rules framed under Section 89 of the Bihar Excise Act (compendiously 'the Act,) there was conflict of the opinion between the two Division Bench decisions of the Court. The first Division Bench decision was rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 6118 of 1993, followed in C.W.J.C. No. 1587 of 1994 ; whereas the contrary view in Division Bench decision was rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 64% of 1994. As there was conflict of the opinion in these Division Bench decisions, hence the matter was referred to a larger Bench. This is how this matter has been placed before this Full Bench. As these petitions involve similar questions for determination hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The present writ petitions were filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the prayers is for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to charge the licence fee for the period during which the petitioner was not granted any licence nor any business was carried out for that period, in other words it was to make proportionate reduction in the licence fee and to refund to the petitioners the excess amount paid.

(3.) In these writ petitions the questions involved are as to whether the petitioners are entitled to proportionate reduction and consequential refund in the licence fee paid in connection with the settlement of the wholesale licence of Indian made foreign liquor under Rule 106 of the Rules. In other words whether the respondents can compel the petitioners to pay the licence fee for the period for which no licence was issued and in that period no business was made. Even though the licence was granted for a limited period i.e. 8.10.1994 to 31.3.1995, but the respondents are trying to charge licence fee. for whose of the financial year, i.e. 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995. The licence was granted only for five months and 23 days, but the licence fee was charged for 12 months, i.e. from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995, which was arbitrary, unreasonable beyond the authority in law and manifestly erroneous.