RADHEY BISCUITS PVT. LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was granted separate licenses for country liquor and spiced country liquor vends in the district of Dhanbad, constituting Group -I and also for Indian made Foreign Liquor etc., constituting Group -II for the period commencing from 15th December, 2004 to 31st March, 2005. These licenses were granted pursuant to acceptance of bid of the petitioner. This grouping was constituted pursuant to State Government's Excise Policy formulated in the year, 2004. Under this policy, all retail country liquor and spiced country liquor shops, falling within a district, were clubbed in one group and all retail Indian made foreign liquor, wine and beer shops in another group. Settlement of the shops in Group -I and Group -II for grant of licenses was made through auction -cum -tender notice issued in Form -127.

(2.) AFTER expiry of the period, these licenses were renewed for next financial year, ending on 31st March, 2006. It is the case of the petitioner that it applied for surrender of license in respect of Group -I vide application dated 27th February, 2006 in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Bihar Excise Act. The surrender of license was sought on the ground indicated in its application, wherein, it was stated that since the settlement for manufacture and wholesale supply of country/spiced country liquor in the State of Jharkhand was not concluded within time, the supply of country liquor remained interrupted from the period June, 2005 till October, 2005 and, thereafter, no supply of spiced country liquor beyond October, 2005 was made as the manufacture and wholesale license of spiced country liquor remain unsettled. It is alleged that the petitioner did not open its shops during the said period due to non -supply of liquor and suffered heavy losses. The application for surrender made to respondent No. 4 came to be rejected vide Memo No. 415 dated 31st March, 2006 and petitioner was directed to pay the license fee for both the groups. It is stated in this order that since the settlement was made for both the groups as one block for three years up to 31st March, 2007, petitioner's request for surrender of license one year before the date of expiry can not be accepted. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 6,87,24,703.00 (Rupees six crores eighty seven lacs twenty four thousand and seven hundred three only) so as to renew the licenses for both the groups for the year, 2006 -2007. It is further stipulated that failing this, action under the rule shall be initiated. Respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 4th March, 2006 communicated respondent No. 3 that the licenses for both the Groups -I and II, issued in favour of the same person/firm, be renewed simultaneously and it should not be renewed leaving one group. Aggrieved of the order dated 4th March, 2006 petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. 1634 of 2006. This writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 10th April, 2006 with the following directions:

(3.) IT is this order of the Board of Revenue dated 18th September, 2006, which is now under challenge in this writ application. Petitioner has also placed on record details of the amount, paid by it from the date of commencement of the license through Annexures - 6 and 7 of the writ application. These details contain the date and number of Chalan and the amount represented by each Chalan and according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the entire amount represented by the affidavit -cum -indemnity bond having been paid, the Member, Board of Revenue, was required to consider the plea of the petitioner, raised before it with documentary evidence, but the Member, Board of Revenue, has committed a glaring illegality in not considering the proof of payment of the license fee for the period of license for the year, 2005 -2006, and has illegally rejected the revision only on the basis of affidavit/indemnity bond, which was otherwise procured from the petitioner by exercising threat/coercion with a view to force the petitioner to carry on business for Group -I also along with Group -II. It is alleged that the petitioner was threatened that its license for Group -II will not be renewed unless such document is furnished and to secure the renewal of license of Group -II (Indian made Foreign Liquor, Beer etc.) the Director of the petitioner -company executed this document, though no license fee was payable in respect to Group -I license, the same having been deposited through various Chalans, including the adjustment of the advance amount of Rs. 3,60,35,700/ - (Rupees three crores sixty lacs thirty five thousand and seven hundred only). Copies of Chalans have also been filed along with supplementary affidavit dated 17th November, 2006. It was in view of Annexures - 6 and 7 and the pleadings that this Court had stayed the recovery from the petitioner, vide order dated 18th November, 2006 and respondents were asked to file a supplementary counter affidavit, specifically stating about the license fee payable for the financial year 2006 -2007 for Group -I.