BADRUDEEN AND SIX ORS. Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bunch of petitions raises a common question of law as to whether the notice issued by the District Excise officer was valid.

(2.) THROUGH the aforesaid notice for recovery, the amount mentioned therein was recoverable by the District Excise Officer on the ground that the security furnished by the petitioner had gone reduced because of the non -payment of the price of the country liquor for the period of December, 1981.

(3.) AFTER the issue of the licence, the excise authorities supplied country liquor for the months of September and October and the petitioner deposited the amount for any shortage which remained on his account. In the months of November and December, however these was a storage of country liquor in the warehouse of Ganganagar Sugar Mills, on account of which country liquor was not supplied for the quantity which the District Excise Officer, Ganga Nagar had to supply. The petitioner despite the repeated requests could not get the quantity of country liquor in respect of the shops, which had been taken by him on auction. It has filed Schedule -A to the writ petition giving the the details about the deposit receipt of country liquor and the shortfalls. The same is reproduced below: