Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, CJ, Aftab Alam, J. 1. Whether the net for the levy of administrative charges under the Bihar molasses (Control) Act can be a case wide enough to include distilleries within the State and further to include distilleries which in addition to being situated in this State satisfied that need for the raw materials, at least partly, by making captive consumption of molasses produced in their sugar units? This is the common question arising in all the three writ petitions. Hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioner No.1 in C. W. J. C. No.1907 of 1996 has its distillery situated at Lauria in the district of West Cham-paran within the State of Bihar. It gets its supply of molasses from the different sugar mills situated in Bihar as per the direction given by the Commissioner Excise cum Molasses Controller in terms of Sec.6 of the Bihar molasses Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Petitioner No.2 in this writ petition is a company having a sugar mill in the State of bihar. 3. The sole petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.4536 of 1996 is the distillery division of M/s Riga Sugar Company ltd. The comapny also owns a sugar factory. The sugar mill and the distillery division of the petitioner company are both situated in the district of Sitamarhi within the State of Bihar and the distillery gets its supply of molasses from the sugar mill or the company with due directions in this regard from the commissioner Excise cum Molasses controller. In other words, molasses produced in the sugar mill of the company are captively consumed in its distillery division. 4. The sole petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.2611 of 1996 is a company and it is stated to be owned by another company under the name and style of Awadh sugar Mills Limited. The petitioner company has a distillery and the proprietor company has a sugar mill both of which are said to be situated in the same campus at Narkattaganj in the district of West Champaran within the state of Bihar. The raw material needs of the distillery, in the case of this petitioner, are atleast partly satisfied from the molasses produced in the sugar mill owned by the proprietor company. 5. The raw material needs of the distillery, in the case of this petitioner, are atleast partly satisfied from the molasses produced in the sugar mill owned by the proprietor company. 5. The petitioner in all the three writ petitions seek to challenge the notification dated July 24, 1996 (Copy at Annexure- 4) revising the rates of administrative charges in exercise of power under Sec.8-A of the Act and the amendment notification dated december 20,1995 (Copy at Annexure-5 ). The two notifications are assailed in so far as by virtue of the amendment introduced by the latter notification, the distilleries situated within the State are also made liable to pay administrative charges molasses. In addition to the two notifications, the petitioners also challenge clause 20 in the order dated december 22,1995 (Copy at Annexure-6) issued by the Excise Commissioner cum Molasses Controller under Section 6 of the Act. 6. The levy of administrative charges on the sale of molasses when initially sought to be imposed was successfully challenged by the dealers before this court in C. W. J. C. No.222 of 1971,1975 b. B. C. J.397. This Court struck down the levy as there was no sanction for it in the Act as it stood at that time. Thereafter by Bihar Molasses (Control) (Amendment) Act, 1977, sub-section (f)in Sec.2 and Sec.8-A were inserted in the Act empowering the State government to impose administrative charges on molasses. In exercise of power under the newly inserted Section 8a, notifications were issued fixing the rates at which administrative charges were payable. The last revision was made by notification dated July 24,1995 (published in the official gazette of august 1, 1995 ). The operative part of this notification (copy at Annexure-4) is as follows: (1) Administrative charges shall be payable, on released Molasses containing 37% and above reducing sugar at the rate of Rs.15 (rupees fifteen) per quintal and at the rate of Rs.10 (rupees ten)per quintal on released molasses containing reducing sugar less than 37%. (2) Administrative charges at the above mentioned rates shall be payable on the released molasses intended for supply to the distilleries of outside the state. " 7. By an amendment notification dated December 20, 1995 another para was added as paragraph 3 to the earlier notification dated July 24,1995. (2) Administrative charges at the above mentioned rates shall be payable on the released molasses intended for supply to the distilleries of outside the state. " 7. By an amendment notification dated December 20, 1995 another para was added as paragraph 3 to the earlier notification dated July 24,1995. The ad-dition of the paragraph was aimed at making the distilleries within the State also liable to pay administrative charges on molasses. The added paragraph is in the following term: (3) "administrative charges at the above-mentioned rates shall be payable on the released- molasses intended for supply to the distilleries within the State. This will, come into force with effect from the date of publication of notification in official gazette. " (Emphasis added) 8 Following the notifications dated 20-12-1995, the Commissioner-cum-Molasses Controller inserted clause 20, as a consequential provision, in his order issued under Sec.6 of the Act giving directions as to the sources from which the distilleries were to get their supplies of molasses. 9. At this stage, it will be appropriate to examine Sec.2 (f) and section 8-A of the Act which contain the relevant provisions in this regard: 2. In this Act, unless there Is anything repugnant In the subject: (f) released molasses means such molasses which is either considered surplus to the requirements of the distill-eries of the State of Bihar or which is unfit for the use of such distilleries.8-A. Imposition of administrative v, charges on molasses.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8, the State Government may in such manner and at such rates as may from time to time prescribe, impose on any safe of released molasses, charges for meeting the cost of establishment for supervision and control over such releases and such charges shall be recoverable from the purchaser thereof: provided that the State Government may exempt or reduce the rates of charges in respect of sale of released molasses to distilleries outside the State of bihar" 10. At this stage, it may also be noted that the expression released molasses, defined in Sec.2 (f) of the act, has not been used in the Act anywhere else except Sec.8-A dealing with the imposition of administrative charges on molasses. 11. At this stage, it may also be noted that the expression released molasses, defined in Sec.2 (f) of the act, has not been used in the Act anywhere else except Sec.8-A dealing with the imposition of administrative charges on molasses. 11. From a perusal of Sec.8-A. it is clear that two conditions must be satisfied before the imposition of any administrative charges; (i) there must be an incident of sale and (ii) the article forming the subject of sale must be released molasses. 12. Now in terms of section 2 (f)released molasses are (i) either molasses which is considered surplus to the requirements of the distilleries of the state or (ii) which is unfit for the use of such distilleries. In other words, released molasses are only such molas-which either on account of being surplus or being unfit for use are not to be consumed in the distilleries of the state. It follows that such molasses which are directed to be supplied to the distilleries within the State of Bihar in terms of an order issued under Section 6 of the Act must necessarily be excluded from the definition of released molasses and any sale of molasses to the distilleries within the State of Bihar would therefore, fall outside the purview of Sec.8-A of the Act. Thus the insertion of the impugned third paragraph in the notification issued under Sec.8-A was per se contrary to the provisions contained in that section read with Sec.2 (f) of the Act. 13. Mr. V. N. Sinha, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State sought to justify the imposition of administrative charges on molasses on the distilleries within the State with reference to the proviso to Sec.8-A We are unable to accept his submission which would render Sec.2 (0 completely nugatory and in our opinion the proviso can be construed harmoniously in a different way any without doing any violence to Sec.2 (f) of the Act. 14. Now looking at the second condition regarding sale, it is to be noted that the imposition in terms of Section 8-A is on any sale of released molasses and the charges are made recoverable from the purchaser. It, therefore, fol lows that there must be an incident of sale and a seller and purchaser of released molasses in order to attract the imposition of administrative charges under Sec.8-A of the Act. It, therefore, fol lows that there must be an incident of sale and a seller and purchaser of released molasses in order to attract the imposition of administrative charges under Sec.8-A of the Act. The demand of administrative charges from the petitioners in C. W. J. C. Nos.4536/96 and 2511/96 appears to be further bad for this reason because in case of captive consumption of molasses there would be hardly any question of its sale. 15. For the reasons stated, we are of the opinion that the demand of administrative charges on molasses from the petitioners in these cases is quite illegal and untenable, We, accordingly, quash the notification dated December 20, 1995 and Clause 20 of the Order dated December 22,1995. 16. Mr. Sinha in a bid to save for the State whatever was possible, urged before us that in these cases there should be no direction for the refund of payment, if any, made by the petitioners. The petitioners in C. W. J. C. Nos.2611 and 4536 of 19% are reported not to have made any payment of administrative charges as they were getting their supply of molasses from their own sugar mills. In case of the petitioners in c. W. J. C. No.1907/96, Mr. Sinha submitted that there should not be any direction for refund of the amounts paid by them on the ground that it would lead to unjust enrichment of the petitioners. In our opinion, in the facts of this case there was no question of any unjust enrichment. There is neither any provision in the Act providing that the administrative charges were to be passed on to the consumers nor is there, in fact, any such allegation against the petitioner. It is further to be noted that on 21-5-19%, a Bench of this Court had directed that the amount of levy as per notification dated 2nd December, 1995 would be continued to be paid which payment would be strictly subject to further orders of this Court. The writ petition having succeeded and the imposition of administrative charges having been found to be without any legislative sanction, the natural corollary is that the payments were illegally collected by be State and the petitioners will therefore entitled to- refund of the amount/its adjustment against their other dues with the Excise/molasses control Department. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed without any order as to costs. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed without any order as to costs. Petitions Allowed.