SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 11.7.97 contained in Annexure 3, issued by the Superintendent of Excise, order dated 4.11.97 passed by the Commissioner of Excise contained in Annexure 4, and the order dated 27.1.98 contained in Annexure 5, passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay the additional annual licence fee proportionately as they have lifted spirit in excess of 30% permissible minimum guarantee quota.

(2.) PETITIONER no.1 was settled country spirit shops at Afrad More, Tarwara More, Mahua and Hassanpura. Petitioner no.2 was settled Aswan and Darauli country spirit shops in open auction. The sale notification dated 4.2.97 issued by the Collector, Siwan, laid down conditions of tender for auction sale of country liquor shops. The petitioners have relied upon clause 19 of the sale notification. Clause 19, states the successful settlees would submit a chart to the Collector of minimum guarantee quota that they would lift, who would take a final decision in this respect. By referring to sub-clause (Kha) of clause 19, learned counsel submits that only after approval of the minimum guarantee quota, the licensee would be permitted to lift additional quantity after payment of additional licnece fee, if the amount lifted is in excess of 30% of minimum guarantee quota. The petitioners state that they filed detailed chart on 25.3.99 specifying the minimum guarantee quota that they would lift from country liquor shops allotted. The Collector of Siwan fixed the minimum guarantee quota only on 10.7.97. In the intervening period between 1.4.99 to 10.9.99, the petitioners did lift country liquor in excess of 30% of allotted quota. The details of quantity lifted is mentioned in paragraph -12 of the writ petition. The petitioners submit that authority has erred in demanding the additional licence fee for the additional monthly quota lifted by them between 25.3.97 to 10.7.97 in excess of 30% as Collector fixed the monthly quota only on 10.7.97. Thus the authorities are not entitled to levy additional licence fee for lifting of excess of liquor beyond monthly MGQ till the quota is itself approved by Collector of the district. 2. Mr. Rai Shivaji Nath, learned Additional Advocate General III, submits that the petitioners knew the exact minimum guarantee quota that they had applied for. He submits that the settlees admittedly were in know of sale notification dt. 4.2.97 which mandates that settlees lifting in excess of 30% of quota will have to pay additional licence fee.