DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and order dated 6.8.09 and 29.9.09 (Annexure-6 and Annexure-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequal benefits and petitioner may kindly be allowed to run his liquor shop the respondent may further be directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the period for which the petitioner could not run his shop to the tune of rupees one lacs per months. This Hon'ble Court. Would further be pleased to quashed and set aside order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure-8) and in alternate the respondent may kindly be directed to pay the petitioner entire license fees and security deposit..any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that due to efflux of time, his relief seeking cancellation of license has been rendered otiose and thus confined his writ petition only to the extent of forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.3,44,170/-, vide impugned order dated 31.8.09.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj submitted that by way of the impugned order dated 31-8-09, the respondent No. 2 had not only terminated the petitioners licence, but had also forfeited the security deposit of Rs.3,44,170/-, which was deposited on 20/21 March, 2009. While challenging the forfeiture of the security deposit mentioned above, he submitted that the State had not suffered any loss so as to justify the forfeiture of the security money. In this regard he relied upon the provisions contained in Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872.;