SURYA KANT, J. - (1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants whose suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent-authorities from recovering the licence fee from 5.9.1995 to 10.10.1995 in respect of L-14A and L-2 licence issued in favour of the appellant for the year 1995-96 and for grant of mandatory injunction to direct the respondent-authorities to remit the proportionate licence fee for the period aforesaid, has been dismissed by both the Courts.
(2.) Appellant No.1 is a partnership firm. Appellants No.2 to 12 are its partners. Appellant No.1 was granted liquor licence for the year 1995-96 in Form L-14A and L-2 for the vends of Kalayat (Rajaund Group), District Kaithal. While L-14A vends were allotted for a sum of Rs.3,56,10,000/-, L2 vends were given to them for a licence fee of Rs.12,57,815/-. As per the terms and conditions contained in the auction notice which were final and binding upon the parties, there were three dry days, namely, 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October and the entire liquor was to be sold in the remaining 362 days. Alleging that due to unprecedented heavy rains in the State of Haryana, there were floods in District Kaithal, due to which their liquor vends remained closed from 5.9.1995 to 10.10.1995, appellants filed the present suit seeking the reliefs, referred to above. However, on an appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the courts below have concurrently concluded that there is no evidence to show that the liquor vends remained closed during the period in question; no such order was ever passed by the Excise Authority; the evidence on record does indicate that the shops remained open even during the said period. The Courts below have further held that no convincing evidence has been led by the appellants to show that there was a flood-like situation during the relevant period.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and have perused the impugned judgments.;