SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

(2.) THE writ petitioners, who deal in liquor, had applied for grant of licence to deal in liquor pursuant to sale notice issued by the State of Bihar. Case of the petitioners was considered by the authorities and bid was finalised in their favour and spiced liquor vend was settled in their favour on 31st March, 2005 in the District of West Champaran, Bettiah. It is contended by Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners that according to finalisation of the bid and settlement of country liquor vend on 31st March, 2005 licence was required to be given to them on 1.4.2005 itself, but the same was given to them on 8th of April, 2007 (Sic - 2005?), on account of which they could not operate their liquor vend. It is the next grievance of the petitioners that even after grant of licence on 7th April, 2007 (S/ 'c -2005?) required quantity of liquor was not given to them upto 15th of April, 2005, though they had already deposited licence fee and also the money required to be deposited before finalisation of the bid. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that on both counts they were entitled for proportionate remission amounting to rupees twelve lacs and odd. It is lastly submitted by Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners were not at fault and they suffered on account of laches on the part of the vendee, the State of Bihar.

(3.) IN these backgrounds of the facts, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon the Court that the petitioners would be entitled for remission, as they hae not dealt in business.