Judgment Gopi chand Bharuka, J. 1. All these writ applications involve a common question of law and as such they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners are whole-sale dealers of foreign liquor. They also have bonded warehouses. For this purpose they have been granted licenses in Form No. 1 and 1-A as required under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed there under. 3. In all these five writ applications the prayer is for quashing a letter of demand as contained in Annexure 1 to the respective writ applications dated 14th March, 1983 issued by the respondents Assistant Commissioner of Excise. By this communication, the petitioners have been directed to deposit Rs. 60,826.80 Paise 60,826.80 Paise 60,826.80 Paise, 38,016.75 Paise, 30,413.40 Paise respectively on account of establishment charges of Excise Officers. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Granga Prasad Bimal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the demand in question is unenforceable and fit to be quashed since it has not been made pursuant to any statutory provision. His assertion is that neither the Act nor the Rules framed there under or even the conditions of the license authorise the respondent No. 2 to make any demand on account of establishment charges. Submission is that the impugned demands have been made under the executive fiat without any legislative sanction and as such it is volatile under Article 265 of the Coast function India. 5. On the other hand learned Advocate-General and the Additional. Advocate-General No. 1, appearing for the respondent State and its officers, have submitted that since the trade in liquor is a privilege accorded to the petitioners under a license granted to them by the State, they are bound to abide by the directions of the respondents even in respect of the payment of establishment charges. According to the respondents, the grant of license to the petitioners is in the nature of a contract within the State and the petitioners having acted and derived benefit on the basis of such license are now stopped from challenging the impugned directions issued by the excise authorities. 6. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned Advocate-General placed reliance on the case of Har Shanker and Ors. V/s. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. 6. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned Advocate-General placed reliance on the case of Har Shanker and Ors. V/s. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. reported in AIR 1975 SC 1121 , wherein it has been held that "since rights in regard to intoxicants belong to the State, it is open to the Government to part with those rights for a consideration. Accepting this to be the law of the land till date, it is an admitted position that in the State of Bihar the legislature has laid down a complete Code for parting with these rights by the State under the Act and Rules framed there under. Therefore, according to me, the considerations for which the State can part with its right of dealing in intoxicants has to be ascertained from within the frame work of the statutory provisions. The excise authorities, may be the Excise Commissioner or his subordinates, must lay hand on some statutory provisions for exercise of their powers. They are not competent to make any demand, which is not authorised by the statutory provisions. The excise authorities are themselves not the State. The State has manifested its intention with regard to parting of its rights through the legislative Act. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal aspects and limitations of the Excise authorities, the learned Advocate General referred to various provisions under the Act, the Rules and conditions of the license. He first referred to Section 7(2)(1)(a) of the Act which, inter alia, provides that the State Government may by notification appoint an officer who shall, subject to such control as the State Government may direct, have the control of administration of the Excise Department and the collection of the excise-revenue. The Government has appointed the Excise Commissioner to be the officer who shall have the said control over the Excise Department and the collection of the excise revenue by its Notification No, 479-F, dated 15-1-1919, Then he refers to the rules framed by the Board under Sec. 90 of the Act, Rule 10 of these rules relates to distillers and it casts a duty on a distiller to provide suitable quarters for the officer-in-charge and other establishment in close proximity to the distillery. Rule 36-A provides that the licensees authorised to compound and blend potable foreign liquor and bottling thereof shall pay to the Provincial Government such frees as may be determined from time to time by the Excise Commissioner as the actual cost of the excise staff, employed for the purpose of this Rule. Rule 44 of these Rules provides that in respect of warehouses for country spirit the licensee has to pay establishment charges of the Excise Officers and the guards. Though no provision was brought to my notice authorising the respondent to levy and realise any amount by way of establishment cost of Excise Officers in the bonded warehouses of foreign liquor but still it has been submitted that the same should be conceded in favor of the State since similar provisions have been made in respect of other functionaries dealing intoxicant like distillers, country spirit warehouses and licensees engaged in compounding and bottling of the foreign liquor. 8. After having carefully examined the statutory provisions brought to my notice I am of the considered opinion that none of the provisions either of the Act or the rules empower the excise authorities to levy and collect any amount by way of establishment charges under consideration. The legislature and its delegates i.e., the State Government and the Board of Revenue wherever intended to levy charges, have made specific provisions in this regard. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate General that since in case of some of the functionaries provisions have been made for levy of establishment charges; therefore, the petitioners should also be subjected to similar charges. Any such presumption is wholly unwarranted. Any compulsory exaction of money by the State through its officers partakes the color of tax under the constitutional law. Under Article 265 of the Constitution no tax can be levied and collected except under the authority of law. The law here means the Act of Legislature and the subordinate legislations made there under. No tax, which includes the nature of demands under challenge, can be imposed under executive fiat without any legislative sanction. This aspect of the constitutional law has been well explained and firmly laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Venkata Subbarao and Ors. V/s. The State of Andhara Pradesh reported in AIR 1965 SC 1773 . 9. This aspect of the constitutional law has been well explained and firmly laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Venkata Subbarao and Ors. V/s. The State of Andhara Pradesh reported in AIR 1965 SC 1773 . 9. It has been next contended by the learned Advocate-General that as per the communication of the Excise Commissioner issued on 20th December, 1982, a condition was imposed under the license that the licensee will pay the establishment cost in respect of the bonded warehouses where he was allowed to keep the liquor in terms of the license. In the counter- affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 1513 of 1983 a copy of the said communication issued in respect of the petitioners has been enclosed. This communication, inter alia, reads that a written undertaking should be obtained from the licensee that they will pay the establishment cost of one Sub-Inspector of Excise and two constables posted in his warehouse and it was also directed that proposal should be sent for creation of these posts. Nothing has been placed on the record to show that any such post either created for the respective warehouses or any Sub-Inspector or constables were posted resulting in any extra-establishment cost. Therefore, this communication even if is to be treated as condition as the license of the petitioner, is of no avail to the respondents. 10. Apart from the above, what is more important is that neither the Act nor the rules or the conditions of the license authorizes the Excise Commissioner to provide for levy and collection of an establishment cost from the licensees of the warehouses of foreign liquor. Therefore, even if any such condition was sought to be incorporated in the license it cannot bind the petitioners. The act of the Excise Commissioner incorporating any such condition was without any legal authority and thus a nullity. 11. For the foregoing reasons. I have no option but to hold that the impugned demands by way of establishment charges raised against the petitioners under Annexure 1 are wholly without jurisdiction and as such, are here by quashed. However, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.