9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JJ. JUDGMENT L. Nageswara Rao, J. 1. These Appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondents. The Writ Petitions were allowed by the High Court and the Appellant- State was directed to refund the licence fee and the differential amount recovered from the Respondents for the period during which their premises were unlawfully sealed/closed. As the facts of each case are different, we proceed to deal with the Appeals separately. Civil Appeal No. 7951 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4647 of 2019) (M/S RIGA SUGAR CO. LTD.) 2. A tender notice dated 31.01.2014 was issued by the Department of Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar, inviting applications for grant of Exclusive Privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquor in PET bottles. The State was divided into 17 zones and the 17 lowest applicants in the financial bid would be eligible for grant of Exclusive Privilege in accordance with their preference to a particular zone. By an order dated 04.03.2014, Exclusive Privilege for manufacturing and supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent was suspended for a period of 90 days by an order dated 20.01.2016 issued under Section 42 (3) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (for short the Act ) as the liquor supplied by the Respondent was found to be of higher strength of 70.8 degrees UP instead of required strength of 60 degree UP. Another Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent questioning the order of suspension dated 20.01.2016 which was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the order of the Excise Commissioner, Bihar dated 04.02.2016 by which the earlier order of suspension dated 20.01.2016 was withdrawn. A notification was issued on 04.02.2016 directing that production, sale and utilization of all country liquor shall be completely prohibited in the State of Bihar w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and that the remaining stocks of all country liquor lying in the outlets as on 31.03.2016 shall be destroyed. 5. The Respondent submitted a representation seeking refund of the licence fee and differential amount for the period between 13.12.2015 to 04.02.2016 during which its manufacturing unit was closed. The Respondent quantified the amount of refund at ₹ 1,29,42,928/-. On 31.03.2016, a notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied on 09.12.2015. Another ground for sealing the premises was violation of the condition to maintain required buffer stock. During the pendency of the Writ Petition filed against the order dated 13.12.2015 by the Respondent in the High Court, the licence of the Respondent was suspended on 20.01.2016 on the basis of an inspection report of the Excise Chemical Engineer in which it was found that the strength of the liquor was higher than the prescribed 60 degree UP. Though the sealing order was set aside by the High Court on 25.01.2016, the premises were de-sealed only on 04.02.2016, on which date the order of suspension was withdrawn. Mr. Singh submitted that the order of sealing dated 13.12.2015 has no connection with the order of suspension dated 20.01.2016 which was for a different violation of the conditions of licence. He relied upon Clause 22 of the licence to submit that the Respondent is not entitled for any compensation. In this regard, he also referred to Section 42 (4) of the Bihar Excise Act according to which the holder of a licence shall not be entitled for any compensation for its cancellation or its suspension. The said provision further contemplates that the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thakko Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar, 1971 PLJR 199; Ramnath Prasad vs. The Collector of Darbhanga and Ors., AIR 1955 Pat 345 Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is affirmed. Appeal is dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 7952 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4664 of 2019) (M/S Welcome Distilleries Private Limited). 11. M/s Welcome Distilleries Private Limited, the Respondent herein was granted Exclusive Privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquor at the rate of ₹ 4.32/- per 200 ml. PET bottle for Zone-4, constituting the districts of Rohtas and Kaimur for the period between 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019. The Respondent established a bottling plant and commenced production and supply of country liquor to BSBCL on 01.02.2015. During an inspection conducted on 08.05.2015, it was found that the Respondent was not manufacturing country liquor as per the Minimum Guaranteed Quantity. A notice was issued to the Respondent on 15.07.2015 to deposit the advance of the differential amount upto that date as the Respondent failed to deposit earlier instalments of the differential amount. Consequently, the licence of the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f substandard country liquor. The order of suspension of the licence dated 17.01.2016 was stayed by the Board of Revenue on 01.02.2016. The State filed a Review Application before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 17.02.2016. Immediately thereafter, the premises were un-sealed on 19.02.2016. The closure of the premises, according to the Appellant, for five days between 29.02.2016 and 04.03.2016 was due to the non-deposit of the outstanding differential amount and from 17.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 was due to short supply of country liquor are justified. 15. As the closure of the premises of Respondent was due to the violation of the tender conditions and the conditions of licence, the High Court committed an error in allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondent. Admittedly, there was no prior adjudication in respect of the sealing of the premises or suspension of the licence in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the reason given by the High Court for holding that the Respondent is entitled for refund i.e., on the ground of prior adjudication is not correct. The High Court erred in holding that no show-cause notices were issued before the orders of susp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... East Champaran and West Champaran for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019. An inspection was conducted on 27.05.2015 during which it was found that the strength of the manufactured liquor was below the required strength of 60 degree UP. A notice was issued on 27.05.2015 by which the Respondent was directed to show cause as to why his licence should not be terminated for causing huge loss to the Government. The Respondent was also directed to explain as to why a fine of ₹ 4,51,08,493/- should not be imposed on him for not maintaining the prescribed strength of 60 degree UP and for illegally manufacturing excess liquor. The Respondent submitted its explanation on 11.06.2015 and 01.07.2015. After considering the explanation submitted by the Respondent, the Excise Commissioner imposed a penalty of ₹ 4,51,08,493/- under Section 42 (g) (i) of the Act. As the Respondent failed to pay the penalty amount, the premises were sealed on 22.02.2016. As stated above, the New Excise Policy came into force on 31.03.2016, and the grievance of the Respondent in the Writ Petition was that the sealing of the premises for the period between 02.02.2016 to 31.03.2016 is illegal. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
