- (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal, arising out of a suit for refund of Rs. 2,500 from the State Government.
(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are these. On 30-7-1947 the Excise Commissioner of U.P. granted a permit to the plaintiff-appellant for export of 2,500 maunds of molasses outside U.P. on pre-payment of Re. 1 per maund as licence fee. It appears that by Cl. (4) of the Molasses Control Order. 1944 the U.P. Government had controlled the export of molasses by rail, river or road outside the United Provinces on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Excise Commissioner, United Provinces. The aforesaid licence was granted to the plaintiff by the Excise Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Cl. (4) of the Molasses Control Order, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). The aforesaid Order was made by the U.P. Government in exercise of powers conferred under R. 81(2)(a) of the Defence of India Rules, which, inter alia, empowered the State Government to make an order providing for regulating the production, movement and transport of articles or things of any description whatsoever, Cl. (f) of R. 81(2) authorised the making of provision for grant or issue of permits. The permit granted by the Excise Commissioner, U.P., to the plaintiff-appellant had thus been issued in exercise of the power conferred on him under Cl. (4) of the Order. The appellant deposited the necessary licence fee and thereupon a permit was issued to him to purchase 2,500 maunds of molasses from the sugar mills at Lhaksar for purposes of export outside the United Provinces. Due to disturbances consequent on partition the plaintiff was unable to transport molasses as he had intended to do. He, therefore, asked the Excise Commissioner of U.P. to refund the amount of Rs. 2,500 deposited by him. On being informed that the amount could not be refunded, the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. He contended that the U.P. Government had not provided him with necessary facilities for the transport of molasses outside U.P. and, as such, he was entitled to the refund of the amount paid by him by way of licence fee, and further that the fee charged from him was excessive. The State Government denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that it was not at all bound to supply transport facilities to the plaintiff. The permit issued to the plaintiff explicitly stated that the State Government did not guarantee any facilities of transport to the permit-holder.
(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that the Excise Commissioner, U.P. was justified to charge the licence fee from the plaintiff in exercise of the power conferred on him under the Molasses Control Order and that the payment of fee was not subject to the condition that the U.P. Government would provide facilities for the export of the goods.;