Ram Gopal v. State of Rajasthan — 1994 DIGILAW 994 (RAJ)

Honble MADAN, J. — Since the point involved in these six writ petitions is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. (2). The brief facts, as stated in writ petition No. 112 of 1985, giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner had obtained a licence for the retail sale of country-liquor for the year 1967- 68 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and the Rajasthan Excise, Rules 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The said licence was obtained under the Guarantee System for Gangapur City. The amount involved was Rs. 2,54,920/-, while the security deposit was of Rs. 25,500/-. The financial year for the abovesaid contract of the country liquor commenced with effect from 1.4.1967 to 31.3.1968. (3). It has been averred in the writ petition by the petitioner that during the relevant contractual period, i.e. 1967-68, there was short supply of liquor throughout the State of Rajasthan and consequently, there was proportionate reduction in the supply for the Sawaimadhopur District as well and as a result of which, the petitioner could not supply the adequate quantity of liquor for the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner as per his licence and the guarantee. It has, further, been averred in the petition that the petitioner at the end of the financial year 1967-68, made a demand for the refund of the security deposit of Rs. 25,500/- which was lying deposited, with the respondent - department as the competent Excise Authority had failed to supply liquor of adequate quantity for the reasons referred to above. (4). It has been contended that in-spite of repeated requests and demands made by the petitioner for the supply of the liquor as referred to above, the needful was not done by the respondents and as a consequence of which, the petitioner was compelled to file a Civil Suit No. 6/71 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, against the State of Rajasthan for the refund of the security amount and for damages for the loss caused due to non-supply. The said suit was decreed on 30.7.1971 and the security deposit of Rs. 25,500/-was directed to be refunded by the trial court to the petitioner. The State of Rajasthan did not contest the suit and the decretal amount was paid. (5). The said suit was decreed on 30.7.1971 and the security deposit of Rs. 25,500/-was directed to be refunded by the trial court to the petitioner. The State of Rajasthan did not contest the suit and the decretal amount was paid. (5). It has, further, been contended by the petitioner that the Excise Authority had issued a notice of demand dated 9.10.1974 to the petitioner demanding the amount of Rs.1,17,179.09 and the said demand notice was replied to and objection was raised against the demand. Failing to get necessary relief, the present writ petition was filed in this court. (6). It has, further, been contended that a committee was constituted by the Excise department in persuance of the directions of this court on 9.5.1980 to examine the cases remanded by this court regarding recovery of outstanding arrears of shortfall in guarantee pertaining to the year 167-68. While the matter was under consideration of the Government a number of writ petitions were preferred by the defaulters in the High Court. The High Court decided these writ petitions by 3 different judgments in the year 1980 and remanded 162 cases to the Government with certain observations and directions. The Government preferred special appeals in the Division Bench of the High Court. These 137 special appeals were decided by a single judgment by the Division Bench on 18.12.1980 in S.B.C.S.A-No.434/80. The relevant portion of the S.B. Judgment by which these special appeals were disposed of is that on the basis of the above facts and circumstances and the admission made by the learned Advocate General, the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petitions and directed the State Government to find out with regard to each warehouse as to how much liquor was to be supplied in each month to the licencees in proportion of the total amount of guaranatee given by the licencees and to determine as to in what proportion there was short supply in liquor in each individual month in that warehouse and thereafter determine as to whether any amount was due or payable by the petitioners and also to determine what amount of security was to be repaid or not to be paid in each individual case. (7). (7). A perusal of the said committees report makes it explicitly clear that the committee had fixed the dates for personal hearing at various district headquarters of the aggrieved parties for the purpose of making actual assessment of the short-fall on the basis of information and notices were issued to the parties well in time and that the meetings of the committee were held at various places. (8). A perusal of the committee report further reveals that the parties were satisfied with the assessment made by the committee regarding their liability for the short-fall. Regarding the parties which were not present, decision was taken on the basis of the same criteria. The minutes of the meeting were drawn and placed in the relevant department file district-wise. (9). There was a liability of short-fall only in respect of 5 cases which do not involve any of the petitioners in the present writ petitions as so contended by Shri Rathore, the learned counsel , for Respondents, and not so controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. (10). A perusal of the committee report further reveals that the parties were satisfied with the position of liability worked out in their presence. One of the petitioners who was not satisfied with the decision of the committee had filed a writ petition in this court titled as Prabhu Lal V/s State of Rajasthan and others, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3063/74, which came to be finally decided by this court vide order dated 9.5.1980 along with 136 other connected petitions which were also disposed of in terms of the common order dated 9.5.1980. (11). It has been contended by Shri Rathore, the learned counsel , for Respondents, that it is in persuance of the directions given by this court in the above said judgment that the committee as referred to above, was constituted by the department to go into the question of alleged short-fall in supply of country-liquor and the matter was finally considered by the committee in terms of the directions of this court which were taken into consideration fully by the committee. (12). The learned counsel , for Respondents, during the course of hearing, has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan and others V/s Shri Nandlal and Ors. etc. etc. (1). (12). The learned counsel , for Respondents, during the course of hearing, has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan and others V/s Shri Nandlal and Ors. etc. etc. (1). Similar questions were involved and had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court pertaining to the year 1967-68 regarding the question of short supply of liquor and it was held by the Apex Court that the burden lies upon the licencees separately through documentry evidence to discharge the same and the mere fact of short supply of production does not establish that quantity asked for was not supplied. (13). It was also held by the Apex Court that the question in issue is individual to each writ petitioner and the onus to prove the same is on the petitioner and not for the department and that no generalisation can be made in such a situation. Consequently, it was held by the Apex Court : — "However, having regard to the fact that the matter pertains to 1967-68 (about 25 years have passed by since then) and particularly in view of the fact that all the petitioners are said to be small contractors each obtaining one shop, we direct before recovering the amount under the impugned demand notices the authorities shall give an opportunity to each of the writ petitioners to establish that though they asked for/intended/demanded for the requisite supplies, the department was unable to supply the same. The relief to which each of the petitioners is entitled to would depend upon the result of such inquiry. While granting the relief, if any, it is obvious that the authorities shall keep in mind the provisions of the Act, rules, the conditions of licence, terms of agreement, if any, entered between the parties and the decisions of this court in Pannalal and Prabhakar Reddy." (14). Consequently, the appeals were allowed in the terms of the directions referred to above. (15). It was further held by the Apex Court: — "It is for the writ petitioners to establish their contention that in spite of their demand, the State could not supply the requisite quantity. The mere fact that there was a short fall in overall production of country liquor in the State of Rajasthan during the said year does not establish the contention of any of the petitioners. The mere fact that there was a short fall in overall production of country liquor in the State of Rajasthan during the said year does not establish the contention of any of the petitioners. Even if there was an overall short-fall in production, and even if some of the warehouses could not be supplied with the full monthly allocation....... It does not follow therefrom that the petitioner in any given writ petition was not supplied the quantity asked for by him, nor does it follow that all the licencees attached to that particular warehouse were subjected to a uniform cut." (16). The Apex Court further held that it was obligatory upon each of the writ petitioners to establish that he asked for or intended for a particular quantity of liquor on a particular date but that he was not supplied on account of lack of supplies in the concerned warehouse. In this context, it must be remembered that the contracts in question are essentially commercial though they are governed by the statutory provisions. (17). It is contended by Shri Rathore, the learned counsel , for Respondents that no question for short-fall of supply of liquor relating to the financial year 1967-68 has arisen and there is no cause of action which survives for consideration by this court. (18). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after examining their rival claims and contentions, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the above discussion and the legal position as so laid down by the Honble Supreme Court as referred to above in State of Rajasthan & Others v/s Shri Nandlal and Ors etc.etc. (Supra), no cause of action survives in favour of the petitioners for consideration of this court and accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.