JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Plaintiff was the Goladar of Ganja and Bbang Gola, Balasore for one year from 1-4-1956 to 31-3-1957. On the date of the expiry of the license he bad a stock of Ganja weighing 32 seers and 4 chhataks of Vekapallam variety, in all, 1 maund, 8 seers and 8 chhataks. This quantity of Ganja was taken over by the Inspector of Excise under a receipt (ext. 1) on 1-4-1957. The price of the Ganja was Rs. 945.75 Naye paise. The suit is for recovery of this amount. Defendant pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation u/s 96 of the Bihar and Orissa. Excise Act (Act II) of 1915, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that the stock of Ganja was unfit for human consumption and was to be destroyed under the rules. Five seers and three chhataks out of that were Bold for Rs. 84-30 Np. at a time when there was shortage of Ganja. Though not legally entitled, the Defendant has no objection if this amount of Rs. 84-30 Np. is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit. The lower Appellant court dismissed the suit both on merits and on the question of limitation. The value of the claim being less than 1000/-, no second appeal lies (see Section 102, Code of Civil Procedure). Accordingly the Civil Revision has been filed against the appellate decree. 2. Mr. Mohapatra contends that the Plaintiff?s claim is to succeed it on merit and that the suit is not barred by limitation. 3. The learned District Judge on a discussion of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the stock of Ganja was unfit for use or human consumption during currency of the Plaintiff?s license and was to be destroyed under the rules, even though in fact the stock had not been destroyed. The correctness of this finding was assailed by Mr. Mohapatra with reference to exts. Band C. Ext. B is the relevant inspection note of the Superintendent of Excise of the Ganja and Bhang Gala of Balasore on 1-7-1956. The inspection was made in presence of the Petitioner. The relevant portion may be extracted. The Vekapallam and Ahmedabad Nagar varieties of Ganja are only lying in his Gola and both are being deteriorated from day to day. B is the relevant inspection note of the Superintendent of Excise of the Ganja and Bhang Gala of Balasore on 1-7-1956. The inspection was made in presence of the Petitioner. The relevant portion may be extracted. The Vekapallam and Ahmedabad Nagar varieties of Ganja are only lying in his Gola and both are being deteriorated from day to day. I had remarked in my last inspection to put up the order of the B/R (Board of Revenue) for stopping the issue and for moving the same authorities for its disposal. Gola Officer to trace the office record and put up for necessary action. This inspection note unequivocally shows that the stock of Ganja was in a deteriorated condition and was further deteriorating from day to day. The Superintendent of Excise was of opinion that the issue of the stock for circulation must be stopped. For that purpose, he asked the office to put up the orders of the Board of Revenue and also to move the Board for disposal of the stock. Disposal of the stock, in the context, means destruction of the stock but not the sale thereof. Another Superintendent of Excise again inspected on 1-2-1957 in presence of the Petitioner. His comments in the inspection notes Ext. (0) were as follows: The issue of this Ganja has been stopped before my joining in this district as it is said for the bad quality of this stock. Till now no final step has been taken for the disposal of this stock. The Gola Officer will put up a draft to B/R in this connection quoting all previous references. This inspection note makes it clear beyond any doubt that the, stock in question had been stopped from being issued as it was of bad quality even prior to the joining of this Excise Superintendent. No step had, however, been taken for the destruction of this Stock. In my view, these two documents make it clear that the stock was ordered not to be issued as it was of bad quality and in a deteriorated condition. The learned District Judge has arrived at the right conclusion. The question for examination is whether on this finding, the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the price of this stock. 4. The learned District Judge has arrived at the right conclusion. The question for examination is whether on this finding, the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the price of this stock. 4. Section 92 of the Act prescribes that all rules made and notifications issued, under this Act shall be published in the Orissa Gazette, and on such publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act. It is not disputed that all the relevant rules and notifications, to be discussed hereinafter, were published in the Orissa. Gazette. By virtue of the section, those rules and notifications shall have effect as if they were enacted in the Act itself. General Condition No. 5 applicable to vend licenses under the Excise Law is as follows-(See Bihar and Orissa Excise Manual, Volume IV, Page 1 of 1951 Edition. 5. A licensee shall not wilfully adulterate, or add anything to cause the deterioration of any intoxicant sold or kept for sale by him. He shall not sell any intoxicant which he knows to have been adulterated or to have deteriorated and he shall not store or permit to be stored such article on his premises. On the finding that the stock of Ganja had deteriorated, the licensee is debarred by the statute from selling or even storing such stock. When the sale and storing of such stock is prohibited in law, the stock can carry no value. On this condition alone, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the price. 5 Rule 124 at page 47 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Manual, Volume III, is as follows: A person who has been a licenced vendor may, on the surrender, withdrawal, cancellation or expiration of his licence, with the sanction of the Superintendent of Excise, sell any intoxicant and opium remaining in his possession, for the vend of which he held a licence, to any licenced vendor of the same article. On failure to effect such sale within the period allowed, the stock in hand should be attached by an Excise Officer depute for the purpose and disposed of as the Superintendent of Excise may direct, provided that the Superintendent of Excise, if he considers the intoxicant and opium or any portion of it unfit for use, shall cause it to be destroyed. Admittedly the stock in question was not sold to another licensed vendor of the same article. Admittedly the stock in question was not sold to another licensed vendor of the same article. The stock in hand was attached by the Excise Officer deputed for the purpose. If the article was good, it could have been sold in accordance with the direction of the Superintendent of Excise. If, however, the Excise Superintendent considers the intoxicant or any portion of it unfit for use, he shall cause it to be destroyed. Mr. Mohapatra concedes that the Excise Superintendent is the final authority to determine whether the intoxicant is unfit for use or not. His decision is final. He, however, contends that the Excise Superintendent did not find the stock unfit for use during the currency of the license or on 1-4-1957 when the article was attached under Ext. 1. According to him, the opinion of Sri B.N. Hota, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, in his inspection notes (ext. D) on 7-8-1957 that the stock was unfit for use or for human consumption, is not admissible to prove that the stock was unfit for use as an earlier date on 1-4-1957. Doubtless if the stock was fit for use on 1-4-1957, subsequent opinion of the Excise department that it was unfit for use on a later date would not affect the Plaintiff?s case. But that argument is wholly academic in this case. Exts. Band C clearly show that even during the currency of the license, the stock was of bad quality and was in a deteriorated condition and was ordered not to be issued. The very fact that an order was passed not to issue the stock for consumption, shows that the stock was unfit for use in terms of Rule 124, quoted supra. Sri Hota was therefore right in directing destruction of the stock though his order came about 4 months after. The Excise Superintendent should have passed orders for destruction during the currency of license when the article was found to be of bad quality during the inspection, or at any rate, soon after the attachment under Ext. 1. 6. Under Rule 310(a) at page 135 of Volume III of the Manual, the destruction of Ganja found unfit for use is regulated by Rule 167 and 168 (Volume I, page 153). Rules 167 and 168 deal with destruction of intoxicants deemed to be unfit for case. As the Plaintiff was a whole-seller, Rule 167 applies to his case. 1. 6. Under Rule 310(a) at page 135 of Volume III of the Manual, the destruction of Ganja found unfit for use is regulated by Rule 167 and 168 (Volume I, page 153). Rules 167 and 168 deal with destruction of intoxicants deemed to be unfit for case. As the Plaintiff was a whole-seller, Rule 167 applies to his case. It lays down that Ganja or Bhang stored in a warehouse and deemed by the Excise Superintendent, after personal examination, to be unfit for use, shall be destroyed in the presence of the Superintendent at the time of quarterly inspections. Mr. Mohapatra contends that if the stock was unfit for use, the Excise Superintendent would have directed the destruction of the stock at the time of the quarterly inspections as per exts. Band C. The laches on the part of the two Superintendents of Excise in not directing destruction at the time of the quarterly inspections is responsible for affording some scope to Mr. Mohapatra for advancing such a contention. The fact that destruction was not ordered in accordance with the rules cannot, however, be utilised as an argument that the stock was not unfit for use. 7. For all the reasons discussed above, I am of opinion that exts. Band C prove beyond doubt that the stock of Ganja was unfit for use. The expressions used by the two Superintendents of Excise in their successive inspection notes that the stock as of bad quality and in a deteriorated condition and should not be issued for circulation, in essence, mean that the stock was found unfit for use on personal inspection. It would have been better if in the receipt (ext. 1) the Inspector of Excise had noted that the stock was unfit for use. The omission does not, however, prove the converse that the stock was fit for use. If the stock was unfit for use, it could not be sold or even stored by the licensed vendor in the warehouse during the currency of the license. The stock carried no value and the Plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of the value of the Ganja attached excepting the amount of Rs. 84.30 NP., the value of the Ganja sold. 8. The stock carried no value and the Plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of the value of the Ganja attached excepting the amount of Rs. 84.30 NP., the value of the Ganja sold. 8. It is necessary to examine whether the suit is barred by limitation in view of the admitted position that some portion of the Ganja was sold for an amount of Rs. 84.30 NP. If the Plaintiff?s suit is barred by limitation, he would not be entitled to the recovery even of this amount. It is conceded that the suit is not barred by limitation on the general Jaw. The bar of limitation is based on Section 96 of the Act, the relevant portion of which may be quoted- 96. No Civil Court shall try any suit against the State in respect of anything done, or alleged to have been done, in pursuance of this Act, Unless the suit or prosecution is instituted within six months after the date of the act complained of. If the stock of Ganja was unfit for use, it could not be sold or stored by the licensed vendor during the currency of the license. Under the rules, the stock is to be destroyed. Whether in fact destruction had taken place or not is immaterial. Title to the stock of Ganja found unfit for use extinguishes the moment the Superintendent of Excise comes to a conclusion on personal inspection. An article which is destructible under the rules is valueless. Even if such article has not been destroyed, Plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of its value. The conclusion that the article is unfit for use and is destructible is a thing or act either done or alleged to have been done in pursuance of the Act. Section 96 of the Act would govern such a case. The portion of the Ganja which was sold must be assumed as being fit for consumption. The Ganja fit for consumption an be sold by the Excise department under Rule 124 on attachment after? the expiry of the license. On sale, the vendor to whom the excisable goods belonged is entitled to the price of the article. Non-payment of such price is not a thing done or alleged to have been done in pursuance of the Act. the expiry of the license. On sale, the vendor to whom the excisable goods belonged is entitled to the price of the article. Non-payment of such price is not a thing done or alleged to have been done in pursuance of the Act. The Act does not countenance the theory that if the stock is good and fit for human consumption and is attached on the expiry of the licence, on sale, the price of the article would not be paid to the ex-licensed vendor and would be forfeited to the State. The limitation would be governed by Article 62 of the Act. The Plaintiff?s claim for the recovery of the price of the Ganja sold for Rs. 84.30 NP. is therefore not barred by limitation. His claim for recovery of the price of the stock found unfit for use is barred by limitation. 9. In the result, Plaintiff?s suit succeeds in part. A decree for Rs. 84.30 nP. is hereby passed and the suit for balance is dismissed. The Civil Re-vision is allowed in part as indicated above. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs throughout.