JUDGMENT B.P. SINGH & P.K. SARKAR, JJ. 1. These two writ petitions involve common issues. They have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Though several reliefs have been prayed for, the petitioners are really aggrieved by the issuance of letter Annexure–5 dated 1st March 1995, under the signature of the Commissioner, Excise, calling upon the petitioners to deposit licence fee in accordance with the list appended to the said letter specifying the licence fee payable in respect of different zones. The real dispute between the parties is as to whether the amount of–licence fee mentioned in the list appended to the communication Annexure–5 dated 1.3.1996 is payable by each of the individual licence holder in a particular zone, or whether they are together liable to pay the licence fee in equal proportion. On the one hand, the petitioners contend that having regard to the condition incorporated in the notice inviting tenders published in the Bihar Gazettee on 3rd June, 1995, as also the terms of the licence actually granted to them, the licensees are liable to pay licence fee fixed by the State Government in equal proportion, meaning thereby that if in a particular zone, there are several licensees, the licence fee fixed for the zone is to be paid by them in equal proportion. On the other hand, the State contends that the licence fee mentioned in the list appended to Annexure–5 is to be paid by each licensee, regardness of the fact whether in a particular zone there is one or more than one license. To under stand the rival contentions it would be appropriate to illustrate the same. The State contends that if in zone–A the licence fee fixed in accordance with principles laid down comes to rupees one lakh and there are five licensees in a particular zone, each one of them is required to pay a sum of rupees one lakh by way by licence fee. On the other hand the petitioner contend that licence fee being the price of the exclusive privilege of the State the licensees have to pay the licence fee in equal proportion, that is each one of them is liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- by way of licence fee so as to make up the total licence fee of rupees one lakh. 2. 20,000/- by way of licence fee so as to make up the total licence fee of rupees one lakh. 2. Though the facts of the case are not in dispute, a few broad facts may be noticed. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 22 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, the State of Bihar decided to grant exclusive privilege for manufacture and/or wholesale supply of country liquor. Public notice of the intention to grant such exclusive privilege was given and objections invited from persons residing within the affected area. The Petitioner No. 1 Company (in both the cases) was interested in obtaining licence for manufacture and wholesale supply of country liquor. The whole of the State of Bihar has been divided into nine zones for the purpose of grant of exclusive privilege for wholesale manufacture and supply of country liquor. The Board of Revenue invited tenders from interested parties for the grant of such privilege of manufacturing and wholesale supply of country liquor in sachets/bottles in the different zones for the period from 1st July, 1995 to 31st March 1996. Notice inviting tenders was published in the Bihar Gazette on 3rd of June, 1995, a copy where of is annexed as Annexure–1 to the writ petition. The petitioners rely upon the laid notice published in the Bihar Gazette and contend that the notice inviting tenders itself provided that the licence fee had to be paid in equal proportion by the licensees in a Particular zone. For the purpose of determining the licence fee payable in respect of different zones, the gross sale of country liquor in different zones during the year 1994-95 was taken into account for working out the annual guaranteed quantity and licence fee was determined at the rate of Rs. 1/- per L.P. Litre of such guaranteed quantity. The tenders were also required to furnish other particulars, but it is not necessary to go into those details. The tender notice did stipulate that in respect of any zone, the privilege may be granted to more than one contractor. The Petitioner No. 1 in CWJC No. 920/96 (R) is one of the several contractors who have been granted the privilege for manufacture and wholesale supply of country liquor in respect of Shahabad and Hazaribagh zones. The tender notice did stipulate that in respect of any zone, the privilege may be granted to more than one contractor. The Petitioner No. 1 in CWJC No. 920/96 (R) is one of the several contractors who have been granted the privilege for manufacture and wholesale supply of country liquor in respect of Shahabad and Hazaribagh zones. The Petitioner No. 1 Company in CWJC No. 927 of 1996 (R) has been similarly granted privilege for wholesale manufacture and supply of country liquor in the Ranchi and Dhanbad zones. The grievance of the petitioners is that under threat of forfeiture of earnest money deposited by them any threat of imposition of further penalties, the respondents 2 and 3 compelled the petitioners to deposit the entire licence fee in respect of concerned zones for the year 1994-95 without permitting the licensees to pay the licence fee in equal proportion for each zone. Each one of them was compelled to pay the licence fee determined for the period from 1st July 1995 to 31st March 1996 and the reduction that was allowed was only for the reason that the licences could not be issued on or before 1st of April 1995 and therefore, the petitioners could not do any business during the period from April 1995 to June 1995. The petitioners were aggrieved by the fact that they had been compelled to pay much more by way of licence fee than what was justified by the conditions of the notice published in Bihar Gazette inviting tenders, as also term No. 6 of the licence granted to them. In both the writ petitions the petitioner have referred to the representations made by then against the excessive demand of licence fee and they have prayed for refund/adjustment of the amount paid by them in excess. However, the respondents did not respond favourably and the petitioners are again being compelled to pay licence fee fixed for a zone without permitting them to share the fee payable in quail proportion for the year 1996-97. 3. It will thus appear that the real dispute between the parties is whether each of the licence in a zone is required to pay the entire licence fee or whether the licence fee determined for a zone is payable by the licensees of that zone in equal proportion. 3. It will thus appear that the real dispute between the parties is whether each of the licence in a zone is required to pay the entire licence fee or whether the licence fee determined for a zone is payable by the licensees of that zone in equal proportion. Counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the State relied upon the same terms and conditions mentioned in the notice inviting tenders as also term No. 6 of the licence granted to the petitioners. 4. It is by now will settled that no citizen has a fundamental right to carryon business in country liquor. All rights in regard to manufacture and sale of intoxicant vest in the State. It is open to the State to part with these rights for a consideration. This consideration amount is neither an excise duty nor a licence fee. It is the price of privilege of the State. The concept of exclusive privilege envisages a peculiar benefit granted by the State to a particular person to the exclusion of others in a specified local area. Since the licence fee is the price or consideration which the government charges from the licence for parting with its exclusive privilege, it is a normal incident of a trading or business transaction. Terms and conditions of licence are not open to challenge on grounds of harshness or inconvenience. Counsel for the petitioners did not dispute this settled legal position. It was submitted on their behalf that in these petitions the petitioners neither challenge the method adopted for determining the licence fee, nor do they challenge the determination of licence fee by the authorities for each zone. It is their case that the licence fee being the price or consideration for parting with exclusive privilege which the State possesses, the State is only entitled to the payment of the price and to nothing more. If it parts with its exclusive privilege in favour of one person that person is under an obligation to pay the price. If the parting is in favour of more than one person, then all such persons together must pay the licence fee in equal proportion. It is their case that this principle is also incorporated in the notice inviting tenders and the terms of the licence granted to the petitioners. If the parting is in favour of more than one person, then all such persons together must pay the licence fee in equal proportion. It is their case that this principle is also incorporated in the notice inviting tenders and the terms of the licence granted to the petitioners. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the price fixed by the state for parting with its exclusive privilege cannot be questioned by the petitioners and they must pay the price as demanded by the State. 5. While it is well settled that a citizen has no fundamental right to carry on trade or business in intoxicants and no one can claim the grant of such privilege, as a matter of right, it is equally well settled that in the exercise of its statutory authority, if the State wishes to part with its exclusive privilege in favour of private individuals, it can do so by following procedure which is fair and not arbitrary. If the grant is made on certain terms and conditions, those terms and conditions have to be adhered to by the State as much as by the grail tees of such privilege. There can be no arbitrariness even in the distribution of largess by the State. A fair procedure, free of arbitrariness is a sine qua non for the proper exercise of power even in the administrative field. It is, therefore apparent that the petitioners must satisfy this court that the notice inviting tenders as also the terms of licence issued to them provide that the grantees of a particular zone are liable to pay the licence fee determined for that zone in equal proportion and that each one of them is not singly liable to pay the whole of the licence fee determined for the zone. Therefore, the demand of the State demanding from each licences of a zone the entire licence fee is unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore, the demand of the State demanding from each licences of a zone the entire licence fee is unreasonable and arbitrary. We may observe that it the State prescribes that each licensee in a particular zone shall pay individually the entire amount of licence fee determined for the zone, we shall have no hesitation in holding that the grantee who takes the grant with open eyes is bound to pay the entire licence fee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant since the determination of licence fee cannot be challenged on the ground that it is excessive or harsh. In the instant case the petitioner cases is that the notice inviting tenders as also the terms of the licence in clear terms provide that the licence fee payable by the grantees of a particular zone is to be paid by them in equal promotion and the petitioners have only prayed that the State must adhere to the terms and conditions imposed by the State itself and not Act, unreasonably or arbitrarily They do not claim any relief beyond the terms of the notice inviting tenders and the licence issued to them. 6. This at once brings us to clause 2 (kha) of the notice investing tenders dated 3rd June, 2(kha) which in vernacular reads as follows:– ^^izR;sd fo’ks”kkf/kdkj Bsdsnkj ls ftl iz{ks= fo’ks”k esa ns’kh ‘kjkc dh vkiwfrZ mUgsa djuh gS] ml iz{ks= dh okf”kZd izR;kHkwr ek=k ijA ,d :i;k izfr ,y0 ih0 yhVj dh nj ls lekuqikfrd vfxze vuqKk ‘kqYd ,d eq’r esa ns; gksxkA ;fn foRrh; o”kZ esa izR;kHkwr ek=k ls vf/kd vkiwfrZ gksxh gS rks vuqKk ‘kqYd mruh gh ek=k esa vf/kd ns; gksxkA** Translated into English it reads as follow. "From each contractor of special privilege the licence fee calculated on the basis of Rs. 1/ per L.P. Litre on the annual guaranteed quantity in the particular zone in which they have to supply country liquor, shall be payable in equal proportion in advance in one lumpsum. If in the financial year the supply of liquor is in excess of the annual guarantee quantity, the licence fee shall be enhanced to the same extent." Our notice has also been drawn to clause 3(Ga) of the notice which in vernacular reads as under. If in the financial year the supply of liquor is in excess of the annual guarantee quantity, the licence fee shall be enhanced to the same extent." Our notice has also been drawn to clause 3(Ga) of the notice which in vernacular reads as under. ^^bl fo’ks”kkf/kdkj ds vUrxZr ,d iz{ks= esa ,d ls vf/kd Bsdnkjksa dh lapsfVx IykUV cSBkus rFkk iz{ks= ds vUrxZr iM+usokys ftyksa esa lSpsVk cksry esa ns’kh ‘kjkc dh vkiwfrZ djus dk fo’ks”kkf/kdkj lkSaik tk ldrk gSA** Translate into English it is to the following effect. "Under this privilege, in one Zone more than one contractor may be granted the privilege of setting up sachating plant and of supply of country liquor in sachets/bottles in the districts failing within the Zone." 7. Counsel for the petitioners laid great emphasis on the use of the word 'SAMANUPATIC' in Clause 2(kha) of the notice inviting tenders. In the legal Glossary 1988 issued by the Government of India the word 'ANUPATIC' is shown to mean proportionate. Obviously therefore the word 'SAMNUPATIC' must mean in equal proportion. The use of the word 'proportionate' brings in the consideration of the relation of one thing to another, involving the adjustment or the regulation of the proportion. Clause 2(kha) provides that each contractor shall pay licence fee at the rate prescribed in the manner in equal proportion, in advance and in one lumpsum. 8. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Clause 2 (kha), it is made clear that each of the grantees will be liable to pay in equal proportion the licence fee fixed for the zone in which he is to supply the country liquor. The licence fee is to be calculated on the basis of annual consumption in the earlier financial year at the rate of rupee one per L.P. litre. The opening words of the clause make it clear that the licence fee is payable by each contractor of special privilege and the concluding part of the first sentence makes it equally clear that the same shall be paid "in equal proportion". It is therefore obvious to us that the provision for payment in equal proportion becomes significant when there are more contractors than one. 9. It is therefore obvious to us that the provision for payment in equal proportion becomes significant when there are more contractors than one. 9. Counsel for the State submitted that the use of the words "in equal proportion" means that if a particular contractor is the grantee in more than one zone, he is liable to pay licence fee in respect of each zone proportionately. We have not been able to appreciate the submission urged on behalf of the State because if licence fee is separately fixed for different zones and a particular contractor is the grantee in more than one zone, he is required to pay licence fee for each zone separately and there can be no question of his plying licence fee proportionately, merely because he is grantee in more than one zone. In our considered view, the provision for payment in equal proportion can be given meaning by holding that if there be more than one grantee in a particular zone the licence fee shall be paid by them in equal proportion. 10. Counsel for the State submitted that clause 3(Ga) of the notice inviting tenders made it clear that in a particular zone there may be more than one grantee. The Petitioners do not dispute this fact and only contend that clause 2(kha) and clause 3(Ga) must be read together so as to give meaning to the words "in equal proportion." 11. The petitioners contend that even the State Government understood the aforesaid clauses in the notice inviting tenders in the same manner as understood by the petitioners and this is obvious from Clause (6) of the licence itself (Annexure–2 and 2/1) which in vernacular reads as follows. The petitioners contend that even the State Government understood the aforesaid clauses in the notice inviting tenders in the same manner as understood by the petitioners and this is obvious from Clause (6) of the licence itself (Annexure–2 and 2/1) which in vernacular reads as follows. ^^,d iz{ks= esa ,d ls vf/kd Fkksd vkiwfrZdrkZ )kjk ‘kjkc dh vkiwfrZ dh tk;sxhA izR;sd Fkksd vuqKk/kkjh] ftl tksu esa ns’kh ‘kjkc vkiwfrZ djuk pkgrs gS] mUgsa ,d :i;k izfr ,y0 ih0 yh0 dh nj ls fufonk ds vuqlwph&1 esa fn[kk;s x;s o”kZ 1994&95 esa ns’kh ‘kjkc dh [kir ij lekuqikfrd vfxze vuqKk ‘kqYd ,d eq’r esa pkyku )kjk lfpoky; dks”kkxkj iVuk esa tek djuk gksxk] ;fn forh; o”kZ esa mDr izR;kHkwr ek=k ls vf/kd vkiwfrZ gksrh gS] rks vuqKk ‘kqYd mruh gh ek=k esa lHkh Bsdnkjksa dks vf/kd ns; gksxkA vuqKk ‘kqYd okf”kZd gksxk rFkk izR;sd forh; o”kZ esa vfxze :i esa ns; gksxk vU;Fkk vuqKfIr izHkkoh ugha jg ik;sxhA** Translated into English, it should read as follows. "In this zone country liquor shall be supplied by more than one wholesaler. Every licensee shall have to deposit through challan in the Secretariat Treasury at Patna the advance licence fee in equal proportion in one lumpsum at the rate of Rs. 1/- per L.P. litre on the basis of consumption in the year 1994-95 as shown in Schedule–1 to the tender in respect of the zone in which country liquor is to be supplied. If in the financial year the supply is in excess of the aforesaid guaranteed quantity, then the licence fee enhanced to that extent shall be payable by all the contractors. The licence fee is payable annually and shall be payable in advance in each financial year otherwise the licence shall not be effective." 12. We notice that while in the notice inviting tenders Clause 2 (Kha) and 3 (Ga) have been separately mentioned, in the licence evidencing the grant they have both been dealt with together in Clause (6). Clause (6) of the grant provides that in one zone there may be mote than one contractor and in each zone the contractor shall pay the licence fee, as calculated in equal proportion, in advance and in one lumpsum Clause (6) of the grant makes explicit what is otherwise implicit in the notice inviting tenders. 13. Clause (6) of the grant provides that in one zone there may be mote than one contractor and in each zone the contractor shall pay the licence fee, as calculated in equal proportion, in advance and in one lumpsum Clause (6) of the grant makes explicit what is otherwise implicit in the notice inviting tenders. 13. It was submitted by counsel far the State that in the earlier year when the licence was granted with effect from 1st of July, a proportionate reduction had been granted in the licence fee having regard to the fact that the grantees could not carryon their business for three months. He therefore, submitted that use of the word 'SAMANUPATIC' has relevance only for reduction in the licence fee in cast a grantee is not granted the licence for the whole year. In our view, neither clause 2 (kha) and 3 (Ga) of the notice inviting tenders, nor clause (6) of the licence referred to conceive of a situation where the lease is granted for a shorter term. The reduction in the licence fee on account of the term of the licence being curtailed may be the logical consequence in law. Clause (6) of the grant appears to us to be clearly applicable to a case where more than one grantee is granted special privilege by the State in a particular zone. In such a situation the term provides that the licence fee calculated in the manner prescribed shall be paid by each of the grantee in equal proportion. We are not able to give to the said clause any other meaning. 14. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if it is possible to give more than one meaning to the terms and conditions of the grant, that meaning should be given which is in consonance with fairness and justice and is also consistent with commonsense. An interpretation which results in absurd or unfair results must be avoided. He submitted that if the clauses in the notice inviting tenders and clause (6) of the grant is construed in the manner sought to be construed by the respondents, it would result in an absurdity and in any event an unfair result. An interpretation which results in absurd or unfair results must be avoided. He submitted that if the clauses in the notice inviting tenders and clause (6) of the grant is construed in the manner sought to be construed by the respondents, it would result in an absurdity and in any event an unfair result. If the licence fee is the price for parting with the exclusive privilege of the State which is patted with in favour of a private person or persons the State can only insist upon the payment of price. If within a zone more than one grantee is granted exclusive privilege, de benefit derived by the grantee is reduced in as much as has to compete with other grantees within the same zone. What the state parts with in favour of a grantee is more when there is a single grantee and leas when there ale several grantees. If each grantee is held liable to any the licence fee determined for the zone individually, the State would greatly benefit by charging the price many times over, but the grantee would get a lesser benefit than what he would have got had be teen a single grantee in whose favour the exclusive privilege was granted. The unfair consequence that may result can also be demonstrated by taking other illustration. If in respect of zones A and B the licence fee is determined at rupee one lac each and if there is only one grantee in zone A and four grantees in zone B, the State will get a sum of rupees one lac only in zone A but would get rupees four lacs in Zone B by way of price of the privilege which is otherwise equally valued. On the otherhand the grantee of Zone A would be in a mach more advantageous position by paying less than the grantees of Zone B who shall have to pay the same amount for getting lesser benefit. Such would be the resultant unfairness if clause (6) is construed in the manner commended by counsel for the State. 15. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that there is merit in this writ petition. We hold that the State is entitled to charge licence fee from the grantees as a consideration for transfer of its exclusive privilege in their favour. 15. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that there is merit in this writ petition. We hold that the State is entitled to charge licence fee from the grantees as a consideration for transfer of its exclusive privilege in their favour. The petitioners cannot challenge the quantum of the licence fee, particularly when the principle on which the same is determined appears to us to be rational, based upon the total consumption of country liquor in the preceding financial year in a particular zone. However, we hold that clause 2(kha) and 3(Ga) of the notice inviting tenders and clause (6) of the grant provide for payment of licence fee by the grantees of a zone in equal proportion. This obviously means that within the same zone each of the grantee cannot be compelled to pay the whole amount of the licence fee, as his liability is confined to payment of licence fee in equal proportion that is to say, the total amount of licence fee has to be paid by the grantees in equal proportion. 16. However, we find that the impugned communication Annexure–5 is also ambiguous in its tenor because it has only directed the petitioners to pay the licence fee as is mentioned in the list appended to the letter. Obviously, the demand for licence fee has to be made in accordance with the terms of the grant and the demand therefore, as contained in Annexure–5 should be construed as a demand for the payment of the licence fee in equal proportion by the grantees of a zone. If such be the import of the demand made under Annexure–5, it is not necessary for us to quash the same but we clarify that the petitioners have been called upon to pay the licence fee in equal proportion in each zone. The State and its authorities and officers cannot demand anything in excess of the proportionate licence fee payable by each licensee. 17. It is stated by the petitioners that the licence fee has already been deposited by them in its totality in view of the order of this Court dated 13.3.1996 and in pursuance of Annexure–5. If that is so, no further demand shall be made for the current year namely for the period from April, 1996 to March, 1977. 17. It is stated by the petitioners that the licence fee has already been deposited by them in its totality in view of the order of this Court dated 13.3.1996 and in pursuance of Annexure–5. If that is so, no further demand shall be made for the current year namely for the period from April, 1996 to March, 1977. If any amount has been deposited by the petitioners in excess of the licence fee payable by them, that is, in excess of the amount that they are liable to pay in equal proportion they shall be entitled to the refund thereof. By an interim order dated 13.3.1996, it was ordered that if the petitioners deposited the licence fee by the 28th of March 1996, the petitioners shall not be deemed to be defaulters. The same interim order provided that in case the writ petition is allowed the petitioners will be entitled to refund of excess amount deposited by them together with interest calculated at the rate of 16% per annum within one month of the date of judgment. In view of the aforesaid interim order, we direct the respondent to refund to the petitioners the excess amount of licence fee deposited by them together with interest calculated at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of deposit tm the date of payment. We further direct that the refund shall be made within a period of one month from today. Similarly, the respondents shall refund to the petitioners the excess amount of licence fee deposited by them for the earlier year i.e. for the period July, 1995 to March, 1996. 18. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Application allowed with observations.