- (1.) THIS intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 24.3.1999.
(2.) THE respondents Manoj Singh and others filed writ petition No. 99 (Tax) of 1998 for quashing of the order dated 8.10.1997 passed by the Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad by which the representation of the respondents dated 12.2.1994 for grant of remission from payment of licence fee for the excise year 1993-94 was rejected. The petitioners/respondents further prayed that the recovery certificate issued by the Collector, Fatehpur dated 15.5.1994 be quashed and the appellants be directed to grant remission to the respondents for non supply of the minimum guaranteed quantity assured by them at the time of auction and not to recover licence fee to the extent of non supply of minimum guaranteed quantity of country liquor. The learned Single Judge after considering the material available on the record held that the minimum guaranteed quantity of country liquor was 20 lac bulk litres and it constituted the terms and conditions of contract. The contract was binding on the excise authorities as also on the liecensee. The excise authorities once having agreed to fix the minimum guaranteed quantity to be 20 lac bulk litres of country liquor at the time of auction for the year 1993-94, then they could not depart from their promise and were bound by the assurance given by them. It was not open to the authorities of the State Government to modify or alter or curtail the aforesaid terms and conditions of the agreement arrived at between the parties at the time of auction. The writ petition was allowed on 24.3.1999 and the order dated 8.10.1997 and the recovery certificates were quashed and the respondents were directed to grant remission of licence fee in respect of non supply of 5.35 lac bulk litres quantity of country liquor on which the State Government was liable to grant remission keeping the minimum guaranteed quantity 20 lacs bulk litres of country liquor as assured.
(3.) WE have heard learned Standing counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Shri S.P. Kesharwani the learned Standing counsel has urged that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.;