- (1.) OM Prakash, J. In this bunch, there are as many as 27 writ petitions. Three counsel: Sarvasri K. D. Misra, Shri Mukesh Prasad and Shri Neeraj Sharma appeared on behalf of different petitioners.
(2.) IN these writ petitions, the petitioners either hold EL. 16 licence, that is, a licence for wholesale vend of ordinary denatured spirit having strength of 93. 30% V/v or EL. 17 Licence, that is, a licence for retail vend of ordinary dena tured spirit, which is unfit for human con sumption. The petitioners, inter alia, seek a common relied for quashing of the im pugned notification dated March 12, 1994, Annexure 2 to the writ petition and im pugned order, dated 28-5-1994 passed by the Additional Excise Commissioner, U. P. Annexure 1 to the writ petition and, there fore, for convenience sake facts are stated from the writ petition No. 651 of 1994, Mis. Bhan Pratap Singh v. State of U. P and others, which has been argued by Shri K. D. Misra on behalf of the petitioner and his argu ments have been adopted by other learned Counsel for the petitioners who made some other arguments as well which will be considered by us at an appropriate place. The petitioner in this case holds EL. 17 licence for the retail sale to the consumers of ordinary denatured spirit at Katra, Al lahabad. The impugned notification, An nexure 2 to the writ petition came to be issued by the Excise Commissioner after the predecessor notification dated 29-1-1990 was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Surat Tewari v. State of U. P. and others, (1991) 2 Civil and Revenue Cases 1218. Rules relating to the wholesale and retail vend of denatured spirit came to be amended from time to time. After the 1989 amendment in the rules, 25% and 20% ad valorem licence fee was imposed on F. L. 16 and EL. 17 respec tively. By the predecessor notification dated 29-1-1990, licence fee on EL. 16 and F. L. 17 was raised to 40% and 25% ad valorem respectively. When the notifica tion dated 29-1-1990 was quashed by this Court, impugned notification dated 12-3-1994, Annexure 2 to the writ petition came to be issued declaring that licence fee on F. L. 16 and F. L. 17 shall be 25% and 20% ad valorem respectively. The impugned notification has been challenged by the petitioner on two rounds: (1) that no power is vested in the tate Government to levy licence fee on the denatured spirit; and (2) that licence fee at the rate of 25% and 20% ad valorem on F. L. 16 and F. L. 17 licence respectively is excessive having no corelationship with the revenue realised and the expenditure incurred and hence that is in the nature of the price for transfer of privilege or duty on industrial alcohol which the State Govern ment is legally incompetent to levy and is not a part of regulatory measures.
(3.) THE Additional Excise Commis sioner then consequent upon the im pugned notification passed the impugned order, dated 28-5-1994, Annexure 1 to the writ petition directing the licence holders to deposit ad valorem fee for the period from the date of stay till the date of the notification Le. 12-3-1994 at the rate of 25% in the case of F. L. 16 and 20% in the case of F. L. 17 licence. He thus vacated the stay order passed in similar cases and directed the district excise authorities to realise the-due amount in toto and permit the renewal of their licences only there after. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned notification dated 12-3-1994 and theorder dated 28-5-1994, Annexures 2 and 1 to the writ petition respectively, the petitioners pray for their quashing in this bunch of writ petitions.;