JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was granted in exclusive privilege to trade in Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Country Made Liquor and Beer for the assessment year 1999-2000 on the basis of tender. That licence for subsequent year 2000-2001 could also be granted on 50% additional consideration for such exclusive privilege. During that period the Excise Authority had found that assessee has failed to fulfil his part of the conditions inasmuch as he did not lift the minimum required quantity of liquor and consequently the licence was cancelled and recovery was ordered. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that the respondents were not in a position to make supply of the requisite amount of the liquor. The full amount of the guarantee money for the period in question could not be recovered from him. 3. As against this, consistent case of the respondents had been that as and when the petitioner has demanded the supply of liquor and deposited any amount, the supply of requisite supply of liquor was made corresponding to the amount deposited within a reasonable time. 4. The matter was also considered by the Excise Commissioner in detail and he found that every time the petitioner deposited any amount, corresponding quality of liquor was supplied to him within a reasonable time and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned Single Judge accepted this part of the finding of fact and in our opinion rightly so as the finding by Excise Commissioner does not suffer from any error apparent from record which could necessitate issuing a writ of certiorari. 6. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner raised before the learned Single Judge was, relying upon the documents of inter-departmental communication, that in fact sufficient quantity of liquor was not in the godown of the respondents and the petitioner was made to deposit lesser amount for seeking the lesser supply from the respondents, so as to get over the difficulty arising on account of non-availability of sufficient liquor in their godown. This plea involved investigation into its correctness of allegations that sufficient of liquor was not available with the respondents and the fact whether the petitioner was forced to short deposit the amount or the short deposit of money was voluntary. Such question was not raised before the Excise Commissioner. This plea was not permitted to be raised for the first time. 7. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has found that the petitioner has not even applied for the requisite quantity of liquor by depositing the corresponding amount as required in the contract. His plea is that because of the failure on the part of the respondents to make sufficient supply necessary in the contract, he cannot be forced to fulfil his part of the contract for making monthly payments was not accepted and the petition was dismissed. 8. In this appeal, the same question is raised before us. It was also requested by learned counsel for the petitioner that we consider the record and satisfy ourselves, whether the respondents were in a position for making requisite quantity of liquor available to the petitioned so as to find the validity of the petitioner's contents. 9. We are afraid that this contention cannot carry further, even if it is assumed that in fact the sufficient quantity of liquor was not available in the godowns of the Government, still the question remains answered whether the short deposit of the money which could account for lesser supply of the liquor, was a voluntary act of the petitioner or was a forced one by the respondents ? In the absence of this finding in favour of petitioner no relief can be granted to the petitioner merely for the reason that given godown may not be having sufficient quantity of liquor in stock. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was right in not permitting the petitioner to raise new questions of fact for the first time before him. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. As a result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******