Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Dilip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate writ/direction for quashing the order dated 7.9.1997 passed by respondent No. 3. Prayer for consequential and incidental relief in connection therewith has also been made. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was granted licence on 15.7.1997 for foreign liquor shops, he cannot be asked to any licence fee for the period prior to that date. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance in : (i) Vim Singh V/s. The State of Bihar, (CWJC No. 6118 of 1993; disposed of on 24.8.1993), (ii) Mahendra Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar, (CWJC No. 1587 of 1994; disposed of on 8.7.1994); and (iii) Rakesh Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar, (CWJC No. 3155 of 1994/R; disposed of on 28.1.1995). All the three decisions mentioned above have been delivered by the Division Benches of this Court the main judgment being that of Vim Singh (supra), in which it has held that the licencee is required to pay licence fee for the period for which he has granted the licence and not for the whole year. 4. Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate, has however, placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Ajanta Traders V/s. The State of Bihar, 1996 (2) PLJR 281 . The majority of the Full Bench has overruled the aforesaid decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and has held that the licence fee is to be paid for the whole year and there cannot be any proportionate reduction for the period prior to the grant of licence. 5. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it has been stated that the petitioner took the shops on 11.4.1997, accepting the terms and conditions of the sale notification published earlier, according to which he has required to deposit advance licence fee of the shops, but instead of doing that he made an application on 11.4.1997 seeking a weeks time for depositing the advance licence fee of Rs. 2,48,160/-. On 17.4.1997 another application was moved by him making similar request for extension of time for one week more for depositing the licence fee. 2,48,160/-. On 17.4.1997 another application was moved by him making similar request for extension of time for one week more for depositing the licence fee. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner denying the averments made in the counter affidavit. 6. The petitioner thus has no case, either in law or on facts. In law, the three decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been over-ruled by the Full Bench. On fact, the petitioner had taken the shops in question on 11.4.1997 and given an undertaking to deposit the required licence fee with effect from that date. He is also bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the sale notification pursuant to which he has taken the shops. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed with cost, which in view of the facts and circumstances of the case is assessed at Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) which shall be paid by the petitioner within one month from today to the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) Council of Legal Aid and Advice. The interim order dated 21.1.1998 is vacated.