M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Kundanlal for setting the demand raised by the District Excise Officer, Udaipur, for Rs, 31,553.91p. vide notice dated 20 -8 -1974 (Annexure I), quashed.
(2.) BRIT fly, the facts are that the petitioner obtained the licence for retail sale of country liquor for the year 1963 -64 under the guarantee system and he Was required to obtain the liquor for the value of Rs. 144,060/ - as per its issue price. The petitioner alleged that he received regular supply of contry liquor till June, 1963, according to his requisitions, but from July, 1963, to December, 1963, he was not supplied the country liquor according to his requisitions as the same was not available in the warehouse. In the relevant Year there were no stocks of liquor in the warehouse and the respondents were not in a position to supply and in fact did not supply the liquor as demanded by the petitioner. It was also stated that the supply was ridiculously insignificant during the most important festivals like Deshera, Navratiri, Rakhi and Deepawali when usually the sales are at the highest. Inspite of representations and repeated demands the liquor was not supplied and such the petitioner could not lift the liquor to the tune of guaranteed amount. The petitioner further stated that he deposited a sum of Rs. 14 406/ -as earnest money. He demanded the return of the earnest money, but the same was not returned to him. The petitioner then filed a civil suit for the recovery of the earnest money as well as for the loss of Rs. 3,200/ - after serving notice under Section 80, C.P.C., but the suit was, however, dismissed. The petitioner then preferred S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 200 of 1972 -Knndanlal v. State of Rajasthan. The petitioner further stated that the District Excise Officer created a demand for the amount of the short -fall being the price of uplifted liquor during the relevant year, which is Rs. 31,553.91. The petitioner was (sic) called upon to deposit the said amount vide notice Annexure I within fifteen days failing which the patitioner's property would be attached. It was stated that this notice did not contain any adjudication, nor the respondents, at any earlier stags, had adjudicated upon the reply of the petitioner that the short fall was due to the non -availablity and non -supply of liquor to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the demand on the grounds stated in para 11 of the writ petition. It is not necessary to mention the ground that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to obtain the supply of liquor, but the shortfall was due to short supply of liquor. On behalf of the respondents return to the writ petition has been filed, in which facts regarding grant of licence and the guaranteed amount have been admitted. It was stated that the liquor was supplied to the licence petitioner as and when demanded by him. The petitioner was required to deporit money in Treasury to obtain the liquor in accordance with the condition of the licence and all the challans duly paid by the petitioner to the Treasury, when presented to the Excise Authorities were honoured by issuing liquor to the petitioner. The petitioner is to blame himself for the non -supply of the liquor and the State is not at fault for non supply as the State on its part supplied liquor to the petitioner as and when be made payment for the same and presented challans to the Excise Authorities signifying payment of the necessary money. The petitioner had laid no foundation to prove that the State was in any way, responsible for non -supply of the liquor when demanded by the petitioner. In para 7 of the reply it was stated that the supply of the liquor in some warehouses during a month or two was a bit, low, but it did not result in non -supply of the liquor when demanded by the licencee. Thus, the licencee himself was liable for breach of condition. As the petitionor failed to lift the liquor up to the guarantee amount, so the demand was rightly created against the petitioner and the respondents were within their right to raise the demand through notice Annexure I. Reply in respect of other grounds and averments was also made, but they are not very material It was prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed with costs.
(3.) I have beard Shri M G. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents.;