STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH EXCISE COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND Vs. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE AND NAROTTAMKA MERCANTILE PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the order dated 4.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2234 of 2007 alongwith W.P.(C) No. 2268 of 2007 whereby he was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions and thus upheld the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, wherein it was held that the respondent No. 2 was not liable to pay the licence fee for the period during which it had surrendered the licence for the country liquor shop.

(2.) TO appreciate the controversy, it is relevant to state that the respondent No. 2 had been granted licence for supply of country liquor along with supply of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and although the supply was to be made for a period of three years, there was a specific agreement between the parties that the licence would be renewed every year and licence fee for each year would be paid by the licensee. Admittedly, the respondent No. 2 used the licence for a period of two years in sofar as country liquor is concerned, but after the expiry of two years, the respondent No. 2 surrendered his licence for the supply of country liquor and as the licence had been surrendered, the licence fee was also not paid. But the District Collector, Ranchi vide order dated 22.3.2006 passed an order refusing to accept the surrender of licence by the respondent No. 2, on the ground that the licence for country liquor could not be accepted as the respondent No. 2 had not surrendered his licence for IMFL and was surrendering only the licence for the country liquor. Consequently it was ordered that the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the licence fee for the third year also, although the licence had been surrendered. The respondent No. 2 assailed the said order before the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand and the Member, Board of Revenue was pleased to allow the application in favour of the respondent No. 2. The said order thereafter was assailed by the State of Jharkhand before the learned Single Judge by filing two writ petitions referred to hereinbefore and the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions against which this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) LEARNED Government counsel relying upon Sub -section (2) of Section 44 submitted that in view of this provision, the respondent No. 2 could not have been permitted to surrender the licence for the country liquor.