SHYAM SUNDAR PARAS RAM AND PARTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 29. 3. 1994 whereby the District Excise Officer, Kota directed for adjustment of a sum of Rs. 45 lacs against the amount of security deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner was holder of exclusive privilege licence holder for wholesale and retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Beer and retial sale of country liquor for Kota group of shops for the year 93-94 and 94-95. When the licence is granted under exclusive system, the licensee agrees to make payment of such lump sum instead of or in addition to the excise duty as may be determined by the Excise Commissioner on the basis of details given. In the present case, the grievance has been raised only with respect to the exclusive privilege amount of the country liquor licence. According to the condition of the contract, monthly installment of exclusive privilege amount is required to be deposited by 10th of each succeeding month and rebate as prescribed under clause (1) (kha) on the liquor lifted by the licensee is granted. The allegation of the petitioner is that from the very beginning of the licence i. e. w. e. f. 1. 4. 93, he was facing problem in obtaining the liquor from the government ware house. According to the system prevalent, a licensee is required to deposit in cash the purchase price of the country liquor in government treasury by challan and has to produce the challan to the government warehouse from where the licence is granted for supply of the country liquor to the extent of amount deposited by him. Ever since commencement of the work from 1st April, 93, the petitioner was never supplied the country liquor to the extent of his payment and there had also remained surplus of the amount deposited by the petitioners with the respondents. Details of the relevant period where the money deposited by the petitioner had remained deposited with the respondents and was in excess of the value of the liquor supplied have been given by the petitioner in Schedule 1 to Schedule 4. The petitioner has filed Schedule 5 which he claims to have obtained from the office of respondents to show that in fact the government did not even have sufficient quantity of liquor to cater to the demand of the licence holders. He therefore submits that there was absolutely no justification for the District Excise Officer, Kota in directing adjustment of the security money against alleged shortfall due to the petitioner not been able to lift sufficient quantity of liquor as in fact the shortfall in demanded supply was attributable to the respondents themselves. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Nandlal & Ors. reported in 1993 Suppl. (I) SCC 681.

(2.) ON the other hand Mr. R. B. Mathur learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order Annexure-7 and argued that the petitioner was sanctioned licence for the year 92-93, 93-94 and 94-95. According to the policy laid down by the government for sale of country liquor, 15% increased amount on the privileged amount was agreed to be paid by the licensee for each succeeding year. The petitioner was issued liquor according to his demand w. e. f. 1. 4. 1993. It has been denied that there remained any surplus or balance with the respondents. It was stated that the relevant statements would be produced before the Court at the time of hearing. This assertion has been made with a further assertion that there is much difference between the statement produced by the petitioner and those prepared by the department and the same would be produced before the Court at the time of hearing. The learned counsel, therefore, argued that the writ petition be dismissed.