Short Note : The petitioner is a liquor contractor. He took an excise contract for the year 1967-68 for a consideration a of Rs. 97,600. The petitioner failed to pay the licence fee. The contract contained a clause under which the petitioner was bound to lift certain minimum quantity of liquor. In case of failure, he was liable to make good the deficit of monthly average of the duty. The petitioner failed to lift the minimum quantity of liquor as specified in the contract. The petitioner was issued four notices which are Annexures A-1 to A-4. These notices specify separately the amount payable on account of the licence fee and the amount-payable under the minimum guarantee clause. The petitioner challenges these notices by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Held : As regards the balance of the licence fee, we do not find any ground, to interfere. The licence fee is payable under the contract and the petitioner is bound to pay it as stipulated therein. As regards the amount payable for breach of the minimum guarantee clause, the petitioner must succeed, because it has been held in a number of cases that the Excise Act does not authorise any levy of duty on the quantity of liquor which has not been lifted by an excise contractor. The point is now covered by thy Supreme Court decision in Bimalchandra Benarjee v. State of M.P., 1970 JLJ 902 . The demand made from the petitioner, in so far as it relates to the breach of the minimum guarantee clause, must, therefore, be struck down. 1970 JLJ 902 relied on. Petition partly allowed.