Judgment These two writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 1181/31 the petitioner has challenged the order contained in annexure 2. Annexure 2 is a communication dated 1st or April 1981 from respondent no. 4, the Assistant Excise Commissioner informing the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has refused renewal of his following licences, namely, (1) Mahuda Country Liquor Shop. (2) Foreign Liquor Bounded Ware house Chas, (Giridih Wine Store). (3) Foreign Liquor Shop (Wholesale, Mithan). (4) Foreign Liquor (Retail), Mithan. The petitioner has also challenged the order .contained in annexure 1 to the extent it purports to lay down that the licences for excise shops will not be granted to the licensee against whom police investigation is pending. Annexure 1 is a circular from the Excise Department. Government of Bihar dated 9th August, 1980 regarding grant of liquor licences with effect from 1.9.80, consequent upon the Government's decision revising its prohibition policy. In this circular it has been stated inter alia that the licences will be granted according to the sliding scale to those licencee who were running theirs hops until 31st of March 1981 and against whom no criminal proceeding was pending. It is further stated that in the district of Dhanbad all country liquor shops had been closed. On account of liquor poisoning four months before prohibition. If any police case was pending against any of those licensee then their licences would not be renewed. It may be stated her that this annexure 1 is also made annexure 1 in other writ application no. C.W.J. C. 1180 of 1981. 3 In C.W.J.C. No.1180/81 the petitioner has challenged annexure 2 dated 12.12.78 by which the licence of his Sonardih country liquor shop had been withdrawn under section 43 (1) (b) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (herein after referred to as the Act). As stated earlier, the circular contained in annexure 1 of this application has also been challenged to the extent it purports to lay down that the licences for the excise shops will not be granted to the licensee against whom police investigation is pending. 4. The short facts leading to these applications are these. As stated earlier, the circular contained in annexure 1 of this application has also been challenged to the extent it purports to lay down that the licences for the excise shops will not be granted to the licensee against whom police investigation is pending. 4. The short facts leading to these applications are these. C.W.J.C. No. 1181/81 The petitioner held licences for the year 1978-79 for country spirit, Mahuda and Foreign Liquor Shop at Chas as also licences for retail and wholesale vend of Foreign Liquor at Mithan. He held these licences for the last several years which were being renewed from year to year. In December 1978 there were cases of liquor poisoning in the district of Dhanbad and all the country spirit shops were closed including the Mahuda country shop of the petitioner. On 1.4.79 total prohibition in the State of Bihar was introduced and all the country liquor and foreign liquor shops including those of the petitioner were closed. In August 1980 the Government revised its prohibition policy and decided to open all the Country liquor and foreign liquor shops with effect from 1.9 80 In pursuance of this Government's policy a circular was issued by the Government of Bihar on 9.8.80 which is contained in annexure 1. On 2nd of April 1981 the petitioner received a memo from respondent no.4, Assistant Commissioner of Excise which is contained in annexure 2 informing him that his licences for the excise shop detailed in annexure 2 were not renewed. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that the licences have not been renewed on account of unsatisfactory conduct on the part of the petitioner and serious breach of the condition of the licence. It is stated that there was a liquor poisoning incident in the year 1978 resulting into loss of hundreds of lives. C.W.J.C. No. 1180/81 6. This relates to the Sonardih country spirit shop in the district of Dhanbad. The petitioner held the licence for this shop for the year 1978-79 and had been running this shop for several years and his licences had been renewed from year to year. This shop had also been closed in the year 1978 on account of the liquor poisoning cases. The licence for this shop was withdrawn in December 1978 by the Deputy Commissioner. This shop had also been closed in the year 1978 on account of the liquor poisoning cases. The licence for this shop was withdrawn in December 1978 by the Deputy Commissioner. The prohibition policy was revised and it was decided to open the country liquor shops and foreign liquor shops with effect from 1.9.80 but the petitioner was not granted the licence with effect from 1.4.79. He approached the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for issue of the licence but the licence was not granted. It is stated that the licence for the Sonardih country spirit shop is not being renewed on account of the police investigation into the liquor poisoning cases which is pending in respect of this shop. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated, inter alia, that this Sonardih country spirit shop was also involved in the liquor poisoning cases and the petitioner is an accused in Baghmara P.S. case no. 10 (12) 73. It is further stated that many persons who died on account of the liquor poisoning had consumed liquor from this shop. The withdrawal of the licence was passed under section 43 (1) (b) of the Act and it is stated that the licensing authority has the power to withdraw the licence forthwith without notice. In the present case the decision to withdraw the licences was taken after a report of large scale deaths due to liquor poisoning was received in December, 1978. 8 Mr. A.B.S. Sinha, learned counsel a pearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the cases submitted that the order of non-renewal of the licences in C.W.J.C. No. 1181/81 has been passed without affording any opportunity of being heard and as such it violates the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled for renewal in view of the Government's order contained in annexure 1 and in fact his licence was renewed for two terms after the prohibition was scrapped. According to him the refusal to renew the licence by annexure 2 is arbitrary and illegal. He further submitted that if annexure 1 is interpreted as creating a bar to the renewal of licences pending any police investigation then it is ultra vires section 42 of the Act and Rule 53 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Rule to that extent. He further submitted that if annexure 1 is interpreted as creating a bar to the renewal of licences pending any police investigation then it is ultra vires section 42 of the Act and Rule 53 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Rule to that extent. In C.W.J.C. No. 1180/81 learned counsel submitted that the order of withdrawal of the licence was also against the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard before the licence was withdrawn. He also submitted that the withdrawal order was illegal inasmuch as 15 days fee for licence were not remitted before passing the withdrawal order which was pre condition to the passing of the order of withdrawal under section 43 of the act. 9. Sale of certain kinds of liquor and intoxicating drugs are regulated in accordance with certain provision of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act 1950. Licences are granted for sale on certain conditions as may be determined by the Excise Commissioner Under section 20 of the Act. Section 42 empowers the licensing authority to cancel or suspend any licence, permit or pass on certain grounds mentioned in section 42. Section 42 (1) (d) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reads as under: "42 (1) (d) Power to cancel, Or suspend licence, permit or passel Subject to such restriction as the State Government may prescribe, the authority who granted any licence permit or pass under this Act may cancel or suspend it- (d) If the holder thereof is convicted of any offence punishable under this Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to revenue, or of any cognizable offence, Or if any offence punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 or under the Merchandise Marks Act 1889, Or under any section which has been introduced into the Indian Penal Code by section 3 of that Act." The submission is that according to section 42(1)(d), the licence can be suspended or cancelled if the holder thereof has been convicted of any offence punishable either under this Act or any other law mentioned in clause (d). It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, that he has not been convicted of any offence nor even a charge-sheet has been submitted up-till-now against him in the liquor poisoning case. To enforce his argument learned counsel pointed out rule 53 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Rules framed by the State Government under section 89 of the Act. Rule 53 provides that licences for the retail sale for any excisable article shall not ordinarily be granted to any person who has been convicted by a criminal Court of a non-bailable offence. In this respect learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the licence of the petitioner has neither been cancelled nor suspended under the provisions of section 42 of the Act and the provisions contained in section 42 are not at all attracted. The order contained in annexure 2 is a case of non-renewal of a licence and not a case of cancellation or suspension thereof. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the non-renewal of a licence is governed by section 45 of the Act. Section 45 of the Act reads as under:- "45. Bar of right to renewal and to compensation-No person to whom any licence has been granted under this Act shall have any claim to the renewal of such licence or, save as provided in section 43, any claim to compensation on the determination thereof." A bare reading of annexure 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 1181 of 1981 will show that it is a case of non-renewal and is governed by section 45 of the Act and not by section 42 of the Act as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question is whether the licensee is entitled to any opportunity of being heard before the authorities refused to renew his licence. Section 45 puts a bar on the right of renewal and compensation. It provides that a licensee has no claim to the renewal of the licence or to any compensation. It was contended that once a licence had been granted it should normally continue with the existing licensee if his conduct and management for the year have been found to be satisfactory. It provides that a licensee has no claim to the renewal of the licence or to any compensation. It was contended that once a licence had been granted it should normally continue with the existing licensee if his conduct and management for the year have been found to be satisfactory. In this connection learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 101 of the instruction issued by the Board of revenue under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. Paragraph 10 1 (3) of the said instruction provides that a settlement of a shop should continue with the existing licensee if his conduct and management during the year have been satisfactory and if he puts in by the 10th January, an application for renewal of the licence and furnishes particulars about his permanent residence, father's name and name of any other excise shops within the district or outside held by him or in which he had any interest. On the basis of this instruction it was submitted that if a licensee has put an application for renewal by 10th of January his licence would be renewed provided his conduct has been found to be satisfactory. According to the petitioner there is no finding by the authorities that his conduct has not been satisfactory during the preceding year. It was stated that in fact the petitioner's licence had been renewed in the previous year after the prohibition was lifted In support of his argument learned counsel relied upon a single Judge decision of the Allahabad High Court in Brij Bhushan Pandey Vs. State Transport Authority, Lucknow and another. In that case it was held that mere suspicion shall not amount to proof and unless it was fully established that there had been a conviction, it was not open to the Regional Transport Authority to refuse to renew a permit on the ground of suspicion. It was also held that the Regional Transport Authority was a quasi judicial body and even though it may not be bound by the strict law of evidence yet it must act on the basis of some proof. Learned counsel also relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in S.L. Shaw and another Vs. State of Bihar and others. The Allahabad case was under the Motor Vehicles Act and the same principle may not be relevant in excise cases. Learned counsel also relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in S.L. Shaw and another Vs. State of Bihar and others. The Allahabad case was under the Motor Vehicles Act and the same principle may not be relevant in excise cases. The case of S.L. Shaw (supra) was absolutely on different facts and the decision in that case is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case. In the case of Cooverjee B. Bharucha V. Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer and others it was held that the legislature of a State is fully competent to regulate the business of vending intoxicating liquor, to mitigate its evils or to suppress it entirely. There is no inherent right in a citizen to sell intoxicating liquors by retail it is not a privilege of a citizen. As it is a business attended with danger to the community, it may be entirely prohibited, or be permitted under such conditions as will limit to the utmost its evils. The manner and extent of regulation rest in the discretion of the governing authority. That authority may vest in such officers as it may deem proper the power of passing upon applications for permission to carry it on and to issue licences for that purpose. In the case of P.N. Kaushal Vs. Union of India it was observed that trade in liquor has historically stood on a different footing from other trade. Restrictions which are not permissible with other trades are lawful and reasonable so far as the trade in liquor is concerned. That is why even prohibition of the trade in liquor is not only permissible but is also reasonable. The reasons are public morality, public interest and harmful and dangerous character of the liquor. 10. It cannot, therefore, be said that even in the matters of renewal of licences the authorities are bound to give an opportunity to licensee to be heard. So far as paragraph 101 of the Boards instruction are concerned it is sufficient to state that it has no statutory force. It was so held in the case of Mohammad Hussain Vs. N. Baksi and others. The Boards instruction are mere regulatory in nature and does not vest any right in the licensee. Section 45 of the Act is itself very clear. It was so held in the case of Mohammad Hussain Vs. N. Baksi and others. The Boards instruction are mere regulatory in nature and does not vest any right in the licensee. Section 45 of the Act is itself very clear. No person can claim as a matter of right that his licence must be renewed, So far as the present case is concerned even though there is no finding by competent court or authority with regard to the liquor poisoning case it is sufficient to state that a case has been lodged and it will appear from annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner and some others under section 328 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the liquor poisoning case. Annexure A appears to be the inspection note of the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad in respect of Baghmara P.S. Case No. 10(12)78 in which the petitioner is also an accused. It is not possible to hold that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the authorities refused to renew his licence. 11. It was next submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Commissioner of Excise having approved the proposal under section 35, the order became final and the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to refuse the grant of licence. It has been stated in paragraph 10 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on 20th of May 1981 that, the shop having been approved by the Commissioner of excise under section 35 of the Act, the order of non-renewal passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad is absolutely illegal and in violatation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Excise This statement was made in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State for the first time. It has not been specifically stated for which period the Commissioner of the Excise approved the grant of licence to the petitioner under section 35 of the Act. Section 35 of the Act provides that the Excise Commissioner shall consider the list, objections and opinions so sent to him, and may modify or annul any order passed or licence granted by the Collector; and notwithstanding anything contained in section 8, his orders shall be final. Section 35 of the Act provides that the Excise Commissioner shall consider the list, objections and opinions so sent to him, and may modify or annul any order passed or licence granted by the Collector; and notwithstanding anything contained in section 8, his orders shall be final. In our opinion this does not limit the power under section 45 of the Act. In a case where the irregularities or any illegalities come to the notice of the licensing authority after the list is sent to the Commissioner or considered by him, there does not appear any bar for the Collector, the licensing authority to refuse to renew the licence. Moreover as stated above, the averments in this respect are not clear and specific and it is not necessary for us to deal with this question any further. 12. Now coming to the other case, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 1180/81. As stated above it was submitted that the order withdrawing the licence under section 43 is illegal as it is in violation of section 43 itself Section 43(1) and (2) of the Act reads as under ;- “43. Power to withdraw licences - (1) Whenever the authority who granted any licence under this Act, considers that the licence should be withdrawn for any cause other than those specified in section 32, it shall remit a sum equal to the amount of the fees payable in respect thereof for fifteen days, and may withdraw the licence either- (a) on the expiration of fifteen days' notice in writing of its intention to do so, or (b) forthwith, without notice. (2) If any licence be withdrawn under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the said authority shall, in addition to remitting such sum as aforesaid, pay to the licensee such further sum (if any), by way of compensation, as the Excise Commissioner may direct.” The grievance is that a sum equal to the amount of the fees payable in respect of licence for fifteen days was not remitted to the petitioner before his licence was withdrawn. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the licence of the petitioner is on a sliding scale. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the licence of the petitioner is on a sliding scale. Paragraph 101 of the Boards instruction provides that in certain area licences for the retail sale of excisable articles of certain classes, which are ordinarily settled by auction, are settled without auction and a fee is fixed in accordance with a sliding scale sanctioned by the Excise Commissioner. The procedure has, been laid down in paragraph 101(2). Under the sliding scale system the licence fee for a calendar month is assessed according to a prescribed scale on the quantity issued for the sale during that month. The fee is recovered in the following month. Under rule 101 of the rules framed under section 89 of the Act also it is provided that in the case of licences settled according to the sliding scale system security deposit to be fixed by the Collector, according to the rule framed by the Board, will be realised in advance and each month's fee by the 5th of the following month. This shows that the fees for month are realised in the month next following. That being so, the question of remitting any amount equal to the amount of fees payable in respect of the licence for 15 days does not and cannot arise. In a sliding scale system the remittance of 15 days fee cannot become a condition precedent for withdrawal of a licence Mr. Sinha submitted that at least he was entitled for an opportunity of being heard before the licence was withdrawn. Section 43(1) (b) provides that the licence can be withdrawn forthwith and without notice. In a case like the present one when there were allegations of liquor poisoning in which several valuable lives were lost it could not be possible for the authorities concerned to wait and give a chance to the petitioner to be heard without the risk of endangering more lives in the situation like this. If the authorities withdrew the licence even without notice they were competent to do so in public interest. 13. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties we are of the opinion that there is no substance in either of these writ petitions. The result is that both the writ petitions are dismissed but without costs. 13. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties we are of the opinion that there is no substance in either of these writ petitions. The result is that both the writ petitions are dismissed but without costs. 14. While parting with these cases, we shall like to say that the investigating machinery in the criminal case has been extremely slack and even though a case has been instituted in the year 1978 they have on some plea or the other delayed the submission of the final form. From the inspection notes of the Superintendent of Police dated 12th of December 1980 (Annexure A) it will appear that the statement of witnesses have been taken and the investigation was almost complete. It is surprising that the final form has not been submitted as yet in a case of such a public importance. Applications dismissed.