Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. All these three writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Whether the state is entitled to realise to costs incurred by it for posting of officers at the petitioners distillery, is the common question involved in all these applications. 3. The fact of the matters however, may separately be noted :- C. W. J. C. Nos.560 and 611 of 1980.-The petitioner S. K. G. Sugar limited in C. W. J. C. No.560 of 1980 has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order of demand made by the Superintendent of Excise Lauriya distillery contained in Memo No.433 dated 20-11-1979 (Annexure-1) and memo No.564 (2) dated 23-12-1979 (Annexure-2) and Memo No.63 dated 19-2-1980 (Annexure-3 ). In C. W. J. C. No.611 of 1980 the petitioner has challenged the legality of the demand made by the Superintendent of Excise Mirganj distillery as contained in Memo No.564 (2) dated 28-12-1979 (Annexure-1)and Memo No.63 dated 19-2-1980 as contained in Annexare-2 to the writ application. 4 The Writ Petitioner No.1 is a licencee in respect of two distilleries one situated at Lauriya and another at Mirganj in the district of west Champaran and Gopalganj respectively. It had admittedly been granted licenses by the State of Bihar under the provisions of Bihar and orissa Excise Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in Form 19 (for compounding and blending foreign liquor) in Form, 19-A (for manufacture of sacramental wine or alter wine or mass wine containing not more than 42% of proof spirit) in form 25 for the manufacture of denatured spirit and issue of the same free of duty. In Form No.27 for wholesale country spirit ; in Form No.28 for manufacture of spirit in a distillery issued to the grantee of the exclusive privilege of supply of country spirit under Sec.22 of the Act and in Form No.23 A for manufacture of spirit in distillery for use in the manufacture of chemical, and for industrial, scientific and other purposes. 5. The licences of the petitioner in Form Nos.27 and 28 had been withdrawn with effect from 1-4-1979. 6. 5. The licences of the petitioner in Form Nos.27 and 28 had been withdrawn with effect from 1-4-1979. 6. By reason of the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-1, 2 and 3 the Superintendent of Excise directed the petitioner to pay a sum of rs.1,68,123.77 towards the establishment charges purported to have been incurred over the excise staff posted at he Lauriya distillery from march, 1973 till July 1979 (Annexure 1) and at Mirganj distillery for the year 1975-76 to 1978-79 (Annexure-2 ). The petitioners sought for the details of the said charges and by a letter dated 19-2-1980 (Annexure-3) the superintendent of Excise Mirganj informed the petitioner that the establishment charges had been demanded in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules framed by the Board of Revenue. 7. The petitioners have contended that during the aforementioned years they manufactured less than 10% of the denatured spirit out of the total output of the distilleries. It has been stated that by a notification dated 16-11-1973 the strength of the staff for being posted at the respective distilleries was sanctioned but the same was communicated to the petitioners by a letter dated 24th March, 1977 and thus according to them, realisation of establishment charges with effect from March, 1973 is illegal. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4, wherein it has inter alia been contended that the cost of establishment charges of the excise staff posted to the charge of the distillery for supervision work is chargeable from the petitioners in view of the provisions contained in Sec.38 read with Sections 22 and 49 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 9 the rules of framed by the board of Revenue under Sec.90 thereof as also a Govt. notification dated 16-11-1973 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. It has further been contended that after creation of the posts the staff joined in the year 1974. notification dated 16-11-1973 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. It has further been contended that after creation of the posts the staff joined in the year 1974. C. W. J. C. No.120 of 1980.-The petitioner, Arun Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. has filed this application for quashing of an order dated 27-12-1979 passed by the Member Board of Revenue as contained in annexure-10, the order dated 27th September, 1978 passed by the Commissioner of Excise as contained in Annexure-8 the demand made by the superintendent of Excise Bhagalpur contained in Memo No.2532 dated 5-11-1976, and as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the Superintendent of Excise bhagalpar (respondent No.4) to release the amount illegally with held by him on account of cost price of the country spirit payable to the petitioner and for a further direction on the respondents requiring them to refrain from making the balance demand. 9. The writ petitioner has a distillery a Sultanganj in the district of bhagalpur for manufacture of country spirit and holds licences in Form nos.25, 27, 28 and 28-A. However, the licences granted to it in Form nos.27 and 28 were withdrawn with effect from 1-4-1979. 10. By a letter dated 5-11-1976 the Superintendent of Excise Bhagalpur directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,04,285.00 purported to be being the cost (including leave and pension contribution and cost of uniforms) of the excise staff and establishment posted at the said distillery by the Excise Commissioner during the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975-76 (Annexurer-1 ). The petitioner requested the said authority, to let the petitioner know, the basis for the demand made by him in terms of his letter dated 17-11-1976 (Annexure-2) and in reply thereto by a letter dated 22-11-1976 (Annexure-3) the Superintendent of Excise Bhagalpur informed the petitioner that the said amount is recoverable in terms of rule 9 of the said Rules. The petitioner by a letter dated 27-11-1976 (Annexure-4) inter alia raised the contention that it was not liable to pay any establishment charges and further requested the Superintendent of excise to furnish the necessary details and in reply thereto the said authority by its letter dated 30-11-1976 (Annexure-5) informed the petitioner that the demand had been raised under the order passed by the Commissioner of Excise. The Superintendent of Excise by a letter dated 13-5-1977 informed the petitioner that he had deducted a sum of Rs.19,085.78 on account of cost of Supervisory staff posted at the distillery for the period october, 1976 to December 1976 and he further directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.83,549.43 by 30th June 1977. 11. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner of Excise which was registered as Appeal No.94 of 1978 the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.3 by an order dated 20-9-1978 (Annexure-8 ). The petitioner thereafter filed a revision application before the Member Board of Revenue and by an order dated 21-12-1979 (Andexure 10) the said revision application was also dismissed. 12. According to the petitioner during the relevant years it had produced only 4 to 5 per cent of denatured spirit out of its total produce. It has been contended that by a notification dated 16-11-1973 the strength of the staff at the respective distilleries are sanctioned, but despite the same no Excise Superintendent or other staff sanctioned in the said notification were posted except the Excise Inspector and Constables. The said notification dated 16-11-1973 was allegedly communicated to the petitioner on 24-3-1977 (Annexure-7 ). 13. In this case also a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 14. Mr. A. B. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.560 and 611 of 1980 has principally raised three contentions in support of these applications. 15. According to the learned counsel Rule 9 of the Boards Rules framed under Sec.90 (7) of the said Act, will have no application in the instant case, inasmuch as, the cost of an establishment can be realised only in a case where a distillery had been set up solely for manufacture of the denatured spirit. The learned counsel next contended that the expenses for establishment of the Supervisory staff posted at the distillery being a tax and a fee, the same would come within the purview of Sec.27 of the said Act and thus sub-section (7) of Sec.90 thereof being not applicable, the Board had no jurisdiction to frame the said rules. 16. The learned counsel next contended that the expenses for establishment of the Supervisory staff posted at the distillery being a tax and a fee, the same would come within the purview of Sec.27 of the said Act and thus sub-section (7) of Sec.90 thereof being not applicable, the Board had no jurisdiction to frame the said rules. 16. The learned counsel submitted that from a plain reading of rule 9 ; it would be evident that cost of establishment is to be charged only from the manufactures of denatured spirits in whose favour a licence, has been granted. According to the learned counsel, as manufactures of country spirit have to pay various charges, the makers of the rules did not impose the cost of establishment charge, deliberately upon them. 17. The learned counsel further contended that the levy of establishment charges is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction being ultra vires articles 265 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel in this connection has strongly relied upon a decision of a learned single judge of this court in National Trading Corporation V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 622. 18. Mr. G. P. Bimal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in CWJC No.120/80 contended that as the petitioners have been granted licence in terms of Sec.13 of the Act, it being not a case of grant of exclusive privilege in terms of Sec.22 thereof ; the privilege theory has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of this court in United Distilleries (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1986 pljr 51. 19. The learned counsel next contended that as would appear from annexure-6 to the writ application that the State Government was requested by the Commissioner to create the post of Superintendent of Excise but despite the same no such appointment having been made, the petitioner was not bound to pay the charges therefor. It was further submitted that in any event as in the impugned demand notices no provision of law had been mentioned to show as to under what authority such demands are being made, the same cannot be enforced. 20. Mr. K. N. Jain learned Additional Advocate General I on the other hand. It was further submitted that in any event as in the impugned demand notices no provision of law had been mentioned to show as to under what authority such demands are being made, the same cannot be enforced. 20. Mr. K. N. Jain learned Additional Advocate General I on the other hand. submitted that the licenses have been granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act in order to regulate the business of manufacture of various natures of spirit including denatured spirit. The learned counsel referred to Rule 9 of the said Rules framed by the Board of Revenue and submitted that it is not correct to contend that establishment charges are to be recovered only from the manufactures of denatured spirits, but by reason of the second paragraph of the said rule, merely additional burden had been imposed upon the manufactures of denatured spirit and other commercial spirit. 21. The learned counsel submitted that such a provision of law is intravires the Constitution of India and in support of his contention, the learned counsel strongly relied upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandnl Ltd. V/s. State of gujrat reported in 1992 (2) SCC 42 . 22. It was next contended that in view of Clause 2 of the licenses granted in Form No.28-A, as the respondents were entitled to issue any general or special order, the impugned notices must be held to have been validly issued. The learned counsel further submitted that the decision of this court in United Distillers (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1986 pljr 51 has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, in that case the question which arose for consideration was whether the special duty levied upon the manufactures of liquor in. terms of Sec.22 of the said Act was realisable upon the petitioner who were granted license under Sec.13 of the Act, and only in that situation, it was held that the imposition of the special duty was illegal as the writ petitioners thereof had been granted license under Sec.13 of the said act and not under Sec.22 thereof. 23. terms of Sec.22 of the said Act was realisable upon the petitioner who were granted license under Sec.13 of the Act, and only in that situation, it was held that the imposition of the special duty was illegal as the writ petitioners thereof had been granted license under Sec.13 of the said act and not under Sec.22 thereof. 23. The Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (Bihar Orissa Act No. II of 1915) was enacted as it was considered expedient to amend and re-enact the law in the provinces of Bihar and Orissa relating to the import, export, transport, manufacture, possession and sale of certain kinds of liquor and intoxicating drugs. 24. Section 2 (5) (b) defines "to denature" as meaning to mix spirit with one or more denaturants in such manner as may be prescribed by rule made in this behalf under Clause (3) of Sec.90, and "denatured spirit" means spirit so mixed. 25. Section 2 (6) defines "exisable articles" as meaning any alcoholic liquor for human consumption ; or any intoxicating drug. Excise officer has been defined in Sec.2 (8) of the said Act to mean the Collector or any officer or other person invested with the powers under Sec.7. Sec.2 (12) (a) defines intoxicant to mean (i) any liquor, or (ii) or any substance from which liquor may be distilled and which is declared by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette to be an intoxicant for the purpose of the Act, or intoxicating drug, or medicinal preparation as defined under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. Sec.2 (14) defines liquor in the following term ;- "liquor" includes all liquids consisting of or containing alocohal, such as spirits of wine, spirit, wine, fermented tari, pachwal and bear, and also unfermented tari, and also any other substance which the State Government may, by notification, declare to be liquor for the purposes of this Act. " 26. Section 2 (15) and Sec.2 (19) of the said Act read thus:- "section 2 (15) "manufacture" includes- (i) Every process, whether natural or artificial, by which any intoxicant is produced or prepared (including the tapping of tari-producing tree and the drawing of tari from trees. ). " 26. Section 2 (15) and Sec.2 (19) of the said Act read thus:- "section 2 (15) "manufacture" includes- (i) Every process, whether natural or artificial, by which any intoxicant is produced or prepared (including the tapping of tari-producing tree and the drawing of tari from trees. ). (ii) redistillation, and (iii) every process for the rectification, flavouring, blending, or colouring of liquor, or for the reduction of liquor for sale; section 2 (19) ;-"spirit" means any liquor containing alcohal obtained by distillation, whether it is denatured or not. " 27. Section 7 of the said Act provides for establishments delegation and withdrawal of powers and provides inter aha that the administration of the Excise Department and collection of the excise revenue within a district shall be ordinarily under the charge of the collector. Sub-section (2) of Sec.7 confers power upon the State Government to appoint officers who may have control of the administration of the Excise department and collection of the excise revenue and to perform duties and junctions conferred or imposed on a collectorate. 28. Chapter IV provides for grant of licenses required for manufac ture, possession and sale. 29. Section 13 inter alia provides that no intoxicant shall be manufactured except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a license granted in that behalf by Collector. 30. Section 22 however, provides for grant of exclusive privilege for manufacture and sale of country liquor or intoxicating drugs or denatured spirit or any other intoxicant on such conditions and for such period as it may think fit. Sub-section (2) of Sec.22 provides that no grantee of any privilege under sub-section (1) shall exercise the same unless he has received license in that behalf from the Collector or the Excise Commissioner. Sec.27 of the said Act empowers the State to impose excise duty or a countervailing duty, on import, export, transport and manufacture under any license granted in respect of Clause (1) of Sec.13 or in any distillery or brewery license shall be authorised or continued under this Act. 31. Section 38 of the said Act reads as follows ;- "section 38. 31. Section 38 of the said Act reads as follows ;- "section 38. Fees for terms, conditions, and form of, and duration of, licenses, permits and passes (1) Every license, permit or pass granted under this Act- (a) shall be granted- (i) On payment of such fees (if any), and (ii) subject to such restrictions and on such conditions, and (b) Shall be in such form and contain such particulars, as the board may direct. (2) Every license, permit or pass under this Act shall be granted for such period (if any) as may be prescribed by rule made by the State Government under Sec.89, Clause (e ). " 32. Section 49 of the said Act reads as follows :- "penalty for alering or attempting to alter any denaured spirit-If any person alters or attempts to alter any denatured spirit, whether manufactured in India, or not, with the intention that such spirit may be used for human consumption, whether as a beverage, or internally as a medicine, or in any other way, whatsoever, by any method whatsoever, or has in his possession any spirit in respect of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such alteration or attempt has been made, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousands rupees and in default of payment of fine, shall be punished with a further imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year; provided that this punishment shall be- (i) for the first offence he shall be liable for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months and a fine of not less than five hundred rupees, and in default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment for a term of fifteen days; (2) for the second and subsequent offences, he shall be liale for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and a fine of not less than one thousand rupees, and in default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment for a term of one month. " 33. Section 89 empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the object of the Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to the excise revenue. 34. " 33. Section 89 empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the object of the Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to the excise revenue. 34. Section 90 empowers the Board of Revenue to make rules inter aila for regulating the manufacture, supply, or storage of any intoxicant and without prejudice to the generality of this provision inter alia for regulating the establishment, inspection, supervision, management and control of any place for the manufacture, supply or stoarge of any intoxicant, and the provision and maintenance of fittings, implements and apparatus therin. 35. Sub-section (7) of Sec.90 authorises the Board to make rule for prescribing the scale of fees or the manner of giving the fees payable in respect of any exclusive privilege granted under Sec.22 or any license, permit or pass granted under the said Act, or in respect of the storing of any intoxicant. 36. The Board in exercise of its power conferred upon it under section 90 of the aforementioned Act framed rules by a notification dated 29th April, 1930. Rule 3 of the said rules prescribes the requirements for grant of a license to a person desiring to work a distillary. 37. Rules 9 and 10 of the said rules read thus :- "rule 9-The Commissioner shall appoint such officers and establishment as he thinks fit to the charge of a distillery. In the case of a distillery licensed solely for the purpose of the manufacture of denatured spirit or any other commercial spirit the distiller shall bear the whole cost including leave and pension contributions and cost of uniform of excise staff and establishment as may be considered necessary by the excise Commissioner for proper supervision. Rule 10. The distiller shall provide suitable quarters for the officer in charge and other establishment in close proximity to the distillery. He shall also supply such office furniture as may be required for the use of the officer within the distillery. " 38 It is not in dispute that the said rules have statutory force. There cannot further be any dispute that the Rules 3 to 33 of the said rules provide for licensing or regulation of the distillers. 39. He shall also supply such office furniture as may be required for the use of the officer within the distillery. " 38 It is not in dispute that the said rules have statutory force. There cannot further be any dispute that the Rules 3 to 33 of the said rules provide for licensing or regulation of the distillers. 39. The principal question which, thus, arises for consideration is as to whether the Commissioner has the power to appoint officer and create an establishment to the charge of a distillers only in a case where a license has been granted solely for the purpose of manufacture of denatured spirits or any other commercial spirit. The word commercial spirits has not been defined under the said Act. The said words has, therefore, to be given its ordinary meaning. 40. It is now well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court of India that no person has any inherent right to manufacture or sale any intoxicant or any dangerous drug. The right to vend excisable articles is exclusively owned by the State and fee is realised as the price of the privilege. It is also well settled that the State may fix the fee by whatever mode it may think fit and proper. The State is competent to regulate the trade of intoxicants in a manner different from other trades or business. Reference in this connection may be made to Cooverjee B. Bharucha V/s. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer, reported in AIR 1954 SC 220 , in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, AIR 1972 SC 188 and Excise Commissioner u. P. V/s. Prem Jeet Singh, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1056 and har Shanker V/s. Dy. E and I. Commr. , reported in AIR 1975 SC 1121 . In Southern Pharmaceutical and Chemicals Ltd. V/s. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1863 , the Supreme Court upheld levy of such charges by the State, holding that such power is clearly relatable to Entry 8 read with Entry 51 (a) List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 41. Rules 9 and 10 of the said Rules have thus to be understood as having been inserted for the purpose of regulation of distilleries at the manufacturing level. 41. Rules 9 and 10 of the said Rules have thus to be understood as having been inserted for the purpose of regulation of distilleries at the manufacturing level. The costs incurred by the State for appointment of such officers and establishment so as to enable it to supervise the working of the distilleries, therefore which are sought to be reimbursed by the State is not as a measure of tax and thus evidently, the provisions of Sec.27 of the said Act cannot have any application whatsoever in relation thereto. In Southern Pharmnceutical and Chemicals Ltd. s case (Supra), such charges have been held to be fee and not tax. 42. In the aforementioned backdrop Rules 9 and 10 of the said Rules have to be interpretated. The second paragraph of Rule 9 was inserted by a notification No.23-2-9 dated 23-8-1931. 43. A question which has been raised at the bar is as to whether the said second paragraph is by way of exception to the first paragraph of Rule 9 or not. This Court, therefore, is required to consider as to what is the meaning of the words to the charge of a distillary occurring in the first paragraph of Rule 9. 44. In Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary page 189 the word charge inter alia has been stated to mean 7 (P hr V) Charge sth (Up)to sub : charge sth up record 5th as a debt to be paid by sb ; please charge these goods (up) to my account. 45. In W. Memories , english Idioms and How io Use Them (revised by R. C. Goffin), the Words charge for, to has inter alia been stated thus ; "shopkeeper from whom I buy an article for which I do not pay at the time, charges that article to me in his books. " 46. In Chambers Dictjonery the word charge has been stated to mean "to exact a sum of money from, to ask as the price and as now it has been used as cost or price. " 47. It is, therefore, clear that the words "to the charges of a distillery" means at the cost of the distillary. 48. " 46. In Chambers Dictjonery the word charge has been stated to mean "to exact a sum of money from, to ask as the price and as now it has been used as cost or price. " 47. It is, therefore, clear that the words "to the charges of a distillery" means at the cost of the distillary. 48. However, it is also profitable to notice the background of such levy as has been noticed by the Member Board of Revenue in his order dated 21-12-1979 as contained in Annexure-10 to C. W. J. C. No.120/80 ;-"the first point to be seen is about the interpretation of Rule 9 of the Boards rule. There is no doubt that the expression "to the charge of the distillery" is ambiguous. It could be interpreted to mean "at the cost of" as well as "to be in charge of" though, in the latter case, it will have to be admitted that the language is rather stilted. The best way of clearing on ambiguity is to ask that party responsible for ambiguity to clarify what he or it means. The Board, has therefore, instead of interpreting, which it will be forced to do if the clarification is wanting, tried to hunt up the old files, and has succeeded in tracing out File No. III-29 of 1938-39 relating to the amendment of 1939. From this, it appears that, earlier, cost of excise staff used to be recovered from distilleries manufacturing country spirit also; but under the orders of the Governmentt this has been stopped. Extracts of a note dated 3.7.1937, submitted for order of the commissioner in connection with the grant of a license for the manufacture of denatured spirit at Sugauli Sugar Works are reproduced below. "in the meantime it may be decided whether the cost of the Supervising staff to be posted at the distillery under Rule 9 should be recovered from the manufacturer as in the case of Gunja manufacturer or whether such cost should be borne by the Government as in the case of country spirit. It may be mentioned in this connection that for some years after the introduction of the contract distillery system, the cost of excise establishment at the distillery used to be realised from the liquor contractors but under orders of the Government the practice was discontinued. It may be mentioned in this connection that for some years after the introduction of the contract distillery system, the cost of excise establishment at the distillery used to be realised from the liquor contractors but under orders of the Government the practice was discontinued. The Commissioner recommended to the Board and the Board approved, that "the cost should be realised from a distillery who works a distillery for the manufacture of denatured spirit and commercial spirit, and that is how the insertion of 1939 was born, without however, amending or modifying the original rule. The net effect of this, therefore, is that the Boards rule had intended the recovery of establishment charge from the distillers of country spirit also ; but that after having been effective for a few years this became a dead letter in so far as country spirit is concerned because of Government orders. For want of any reference the file containing the said Government order could not be traced out ; but it can be safely said that under Rule 9. (i) that the Board had provided for the recovery of establishment charge from distilleries manufacturing country spirit also (ii) Under that, the Government had put a stop to it has since revised it by asking that the recoveries be made. " 49. The second Paragraph of Rule 9 which had been inserted, as noticed hereinbefore, by a notification dated 23.8.1939 not only imposes the burden only upon the owner of a distillery licensed solely for the purpose of manufacture of denatured spirits but upon the manufacturer of other commercial spirits also. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that only those distilleries who have been holding licenses for manufacture of denatured spirits only have to bear the burden. The said burden has also to be borne by the distillers of any other commercial spirits. 50. In this connectton the intention of the Board to frame such a rule may also be found out from Rule 44 of the said Rules, from a perusal whereof, it appears that even licencees of Ware-House are also required to provide suitable quarters for officers and the Incharge of the Ware-Houses and in lieu thereof to pay each of them monthly in advance such House allowances may be fixed by the Commissioner of Excise, 51. It is, therefore, clear that whereas in a case of distillers, higher monetary obligations had been put in respect of the licenses of the Ware-Houses such obligation is only cofined to provide for accomodation of the officers or to pay house allowances. Similar such provision is contained in Rule 10 of the said Rules, from a perusal whereof it appears that the distillers are also required not only to provide suitable quarters but also are requird to supply office furniture for the house of the officers within the distillery. 52. It is true as has been held by this court in New Swadeshi Sugar mills Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1983 PLJR 105 that a licensee in form No.28-A is not to pay duty in view of the Entry No.81 List I of viith Schedule of the constitution of India. In Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. V/s. State of U. P. Reported in 1990 (1)Supreme Court cases 109, the Supreme Court however, made it clear that even though the power to levy duty on Industrial Alcohol is vested in the central Government, the State was still vested with the power to lay down regulations to ensure that Industrial Alcohol is not diverted and misused as a substitute of potable alcohol. 53. In Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandal Ltd V/s. State of Gujrat, reported in 1992 (2) SCC page 42, the Supreme Court while considering a similar provision contained in Rule 2 of the Bombay prohibition Manufacture of spirit (Gujrat) Rules and Sec.58 A of the Bombay prohibition Act, 1949 held that the demand for payment of salary and allowances to excise staff employed for supervision of operations of manufacture and storage of spirit comes within the purview of Entry 33, List III of the Seventh schedule of the Constitution of india. In Bileshwar Khand case (Supra), the Supreme Court held :- "principle of occupied field precluded state from trenching on any power which was already covered by Central legislation. But in absence of any provision of the Industries (development and regulation) Act, 1951, touching upon regulation or ensuring that industrial alcohol was not diverted the State was competent to legislate on it under Entry 33 of List III of Seventh schedule which is extracted below ; "33. But in absence of any provision of the Industries (development and regulation) Act, 1951, touching upon regulation or ensuring that industrial alcohol was not diverted the State was competent to legislate on it under Entry 33 of List III of Seventh schedule which is extracted below ; "33. Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of- (a) The products of any industry where the control of such industry by the union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest and imported goods of the same kind as such products :- Trade and commerce and supply and distribution of goods are exclusive State subject under Entries 26 and 27 of List II of seventh Schedule. But both are subject to Entry 33 of List III. That is what is covered in Entry 33 is excluded from List II. And the power to legislate in respect of what is covered by list III is enjoyed both by Central and state subject to Article 246 of the Constitution. Since Sec.58-A can be traced to regulatory power of the State exercisable under Entry 33 the challenge to its validity is liable to fail. It could not therefore be successfully claimed that it was violative of any constitutional provision or the section was invalid in view of the ratio in Synthetics and Chemicals case. Failing on the principal submission the learned counsel urged that no cost for supervision could be demanded unless the power to issue license for production was found to exist in the State. Reliance was placed on observation in Synthetics and Chemicals case. Since it stands answered by the constitution Bench itself it is unnecessary to dilate on it. Suffice it is to extract the following observation ; "the position with regard to the control of alcohol industry has undergone material and significant change after the amendment of 1956 to the Act. After the amendment, the State is left with only the following powers to legislate in respect of alcohol : (a) * * * (b) it may lay down regulations to ensure that non potable alcohol is not diverted and misused as a substitute for potable alcohol. (c) (d) However, in case state is rendering any service, as distinct from its claim of so-called grant of privilege, it may charge fees based on quid pro-quo. (c) (d) However, in case state is rendering any service, as distinct from its claim of so-called grant of privilege, it may charge fees based on quid pro-quo. " Yet in another recent decision in M/s Gujchen Distiller India Ltd. V/s. State of Gujrat, reported in 1992 (2) J. T. (SC) page 20, the same view has been reiterated. 54 Clearly, therefore, the State is empowered to make rules for the purpose of controlling the distillers which are manufacturing spirits whether denatured or any other commercial spirits and thus is entitled to reimburse itself the salary and other allowances paid to the employees, if for such purpose the establishment has been made and officers have been appointed by the Commissioner of Excise. Admittedly such an establishment had been made and officers had been appointed by a notification dated 16-11-1973. 55. In National Trading Corporation V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1991 (2) PLJR page 622 upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the situation was absolutely different. In that case the petitioners were whole-sale dealers of foreign liquor and for the purpose of recovery of the establishment charge, there is no statute or statutory rules nor such a provision exists even under the condition of the license. In that situation, it was held that in absence of any statutory provisions, the demand for "establishment charges" for whole-sale traders is bad in law. 56. The decision of this Court in United Distillers (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1986 PLJR 51 has also no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that case the provisions of Sec.3 of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act 1981 whereby levy of exclusive privilege duty on all excise licenses imposed with retrospective effect was in question. Only in that situation, it has been held that as exclusive privilege is granted in terms of Sec.22 thereof, the licenses granted under within the purview the said Amendment Act, 1981. 57. In C. W. J. C. No.120/80, it appears that a contention has been raised that the Superintendent of Excise was not posted. It does not appear that the said question was raised before the Member Board of revenue. 57. In C. W. J. C. No.120/80, it appears that a contention has been raised that the Superintendent of Excise was not posted. It does not appear that the said question was raised before the Member Board of revenue. In this situation, it is not possible for this Court to permit the petitioner to raise the said question before this court for the first time. 58. The last contention raised by Shri Bimal has also no substance inasmuch as it is well known that for upholding an order, the source of such power has to be found out and it is wholly immaterial if in the impugned order, no provision of law or wrong provision of law has been mentioned. 59. For the reasons aforementioned, all these application must fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Aftab Alam, J.-I agree. Writ applications dismissed.