- (1.) The present Miscellaneous Application is wholly misdirected and lacks in bona fide. The issue raised by the applicant (petitioner in the High Court) in the writ petition before the High Court is that though he was not granted a licence and he had not deposited any amount he has been penalized for not lifting the stock of country made liquor/alcohol. The High Court found the said contention to be incorrect and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition filed by him, inter alia, on the ground of lack of bona fides. The petition for special leave to appeal (No.17826/2017) against the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition has also been dismissed by the order of this Court dated 28th July, 2017.
(2.) After dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the present application for clarification/modification has been filed by the applicant/petitioner contending that in a decision rendered by a four judge Bench of this Court in Excise Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad and others v. Ram Kumar and others, (1976) 3 SCC 540 it has been held that there can be no recovery of excise duty on the unlifted quantity of liquor unless the same is authorized by the statute. The aforesaid point had not even been urged in the writ petition which had been decided on an altogether different issue, as already noticed.
(3.) It is on the aforesaid basis that we take the view that the applicant/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Miscellaneous Application for reasons not bona fide and to circumvent the procedure enjoined by the Supreme Court Rules for filing of a Review Petition which is required to be decided by circulation as opposed to a Miscellaneous Application in which an open Court hearing is granted.;