PALLI, J. - (1.) THE appellant give a bid for 25 shops to sell minimum quantity of Indian made foreign liquor and country liquor for the period 1. 4. 83 to 31. 3. 84. On 30. 3. 83 M/s. Radheyshyam Maharia filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 706/83 in this court and obtained stay order in regard to two of the shops out of 23 in which the appellant could sell the liquor under the contract. On 7. 4. 83 the stay order was vacated.
(2.) FOR not being able to sell liquor from 1. 4. 83 to 7. 4. 83 in two shops, he applied for granting remission in regard to the contract amount. The appellant failed before the statutory authorities in getting remission and ultimately came before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by order dated 10. 12. 84, on facts, came to the conclusion that the stay order was in regard to the two shops only and in regard to remaining 21 shops, there was no stay order and, therefore, it was open to the appellant to lift the liquor which he could have sold in the remaining 21 shops and if he did not choose to lift liquor from 1. 4. 83 to 7. 4. 83, he could not be granted any remission from the contracted amount. Consequently the Appeal was rejected by the Board of Revenue. The Writ petition was filed in this court and the learned Single Judge by order dated 14. 2. 85 dismissed the Writ Petition in limine and this is Special Appeal. The argument raised is that by order of the High Court passed on 30. 3. 83 the appellant was prevented from selling liquors in two shops out of the 23 shops and, therefore, he should be granted remission for a period of seven days from the total contracted amount. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on K. K. V. Veerabhadra Rao vs. Superintendent of Excise, Visakhapatnam, (1), rendered by a single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. There because of the stay order granted by the High Court, a liquor contractor was prevented from carrying on business for a period of three days and the court came to the conclusion that the State was bound to compensate the injured party. On the other hand the counsel for State urges that the liquor trade is an obnoxious trade and unless fool proof case is made out, remission should not be granted. He also placed reliance on Rule 21 (ga) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, which is part of the contract granted to the appellant, wherein it is provided that if for any reason the contractor is not carrying on his business for sometime, the government would not be responsible and in no case the contracted amount would be reduced. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the case can be disposed of on a short point, namely that there was a joint contract to sell minimum amount of liquor in 23 shops. If for any reason the appellant was not able to sell liquor in two shops, he was not prevented from selling the minimum amount of liquor which he was entitled to lift in the remaining 21 shops. If he does not lift liquor for the entire period of seven days for selling in the remaining 21 shops, he cannot make a grievance before a court of law for granting remission on him or compensation. On these facts the case of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is distinguishable. There it was a case of one contract for selling of liquor in one shop and from that shop the liquor contractor was prevented from selling for three days. Whereas in this case, there was no bar in his lifting the liquor and selling in the remaining 21 shops. The trade being an obnoxious one, we find no ground to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge on the facts of this case. The Appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. . ;