- (1.) RAJES Kumar, J. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: " (a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 23-9-2005, received by the petitioners on 08-10-2005, passed in Excise Revision No. 69 of 2005, Anil Kumar & Anr. v. Excise Commissioner & Ors. (Annexure-1 to this writ petition) (b) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (c) to award cost of the petition to the petitioners. "
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are, that under the New Excise Rules, namely. Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "rule, 2002"), the settlement of the country liquor shops of the District Etawah for the excise year, 2002-2003 took place Under Rule, 2002, the country liquor shop known as Bhartana No. 2 was settled in favour of petitioner No. Land shop known as Bhartana No. 3 was settled in favour of petitioner No. 2 in a lottery drawn on 25th March, 2002. THE minimum guaranteed quota for the aforesaid shop of petitioner No. 1 was 42,000 bulk litres, the basic licence fee was Rs. 4,20,000/- and the minimum guaranteed quota for the shop of petitioner No. 2 was 39,000 bulk litres, the basic licence fee was Rs. 3,90. 000/ -. earnest money was Rs. 39. 000/- and the security amount was Rs. 3,19,300/- Under Rule 12 of the Rules, 2002 the person selected as a licensee is required to deposit the entire amount of basic licence fee within three working days and half of the security amount within 10 working days and the balance security amount within 20 days of the information of his selection. If he fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the prescribed period, his selection stand cancelled and his earnest money and the basic licence fee shall liable to be forfeited in favour of the State Government and the shop is to be re-settled. Admittedly, the petitioners could only deposit the basic licence fee and could not deposit the security and the earnest money as provided under the Rules. Though for the non-deposit of the security and the earnest money, selection stood cancelled in view of the provisions of Rule 12, but the petitioners were permitted to run the shops appears to be as an interim measure. The petitioners continued to pay the amount calculated on the basis of the liquor lifted by them. However, the District Magistrate, vide order dated 21st June, 2002 cancelled the alleged allotment/licences under Rule 14 of the Rules, 2002. The said order was communicated to the petitioners by the District Excise Officer vide order dated 22nd June, 2002. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners could not challenge the said order and the said orders have become final.
(3.) THEREAFTER, on 12-9-2003, the petitioners received demand notices dated 19-7-2003 by which the demands were raised for the payment of licence fee allegedly for surrendering their licences under Section 36 of the Act and Rule 19 of the New Rules. On being challenged, the said notices have been quashed by the Excise Commissioner vide orders dated 18-11-2003. The notices were quashed on the ground that they were not in accordance to the Rules. The District Excise Officer again issued notices dated 25-11- 2003 raising the demand of Rs. 30, 95, 750/- from the petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 28,78,930/- from petitioner No. 2 on the ground that even after the notices of re-settlements dated 26-9-2003, 22-12-2002 and 19-1-2003, the shop could not be settled, hence the original licensees were liable for the loss of the excise revenue. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid notices dated 25-11-2003 in appeal Nos. 260 and 261 of 2003 before the Excise Commissioner who vide common order dated 14-1-2004 dismissed the aforesaid appeals.;