Honble BALIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). This petition was filed in 1990 before this court. On constitution of Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, the petition was transferred to said Tribunal. However, the petition could not be decided by the Tribunal during the life of that Tribunal and on its abolition, the petition has been re-transferred to this court and has been re-numbered 1931/99, the original number of the Writ Petition was 3540/90. (3). The facts in brief leading to this petition are that the petitioners were granted privilege/licence for the retail shop for a sum of Rs.16,06,666.72. The shop for which the retail licence was granted was situated at Sadul Sahar. The petitioners had lifted requisite quantity of liquor and have paid the entire contract money for the year 1977-78. However, at the close of the year stock of the country liquor at the issue price value of Rs.2,33,238/- remained with the petitioners on which rebate has been allowed to the petitioners at the time of issue. As per term 1(Cha) on stock remaining with the licensees at the end of the period of licence, rebate granted on issue price was to be recalled, whether the licence has been terminated or term of licence has been expired in normal course. (4). As per term 25(ka) of the licence, the stock on which the rebate was to be recalled, the licensee was required to return the stock as per directions of DEO and was entitled to return of the amount equal to issue price. However, term 25(ka) further envisaged that if for the succeeding year the licence has been granted in favour of the same previous licence-holder, in that event he was permitted to sale the liquor remaining with him as closing stock at the expiry of licence, after informing the Excise Department, subject to condition that for selling of the liquor the stock is not required to be taken out of the town for which it has been issued and this would be facility in addition to the requirement of minimum quantity of liquor to be lifted by him under the current licence. (5). (5). In the light of aforesaid condition the petitioners were awarded the retail licence for the same shop for the financial year, 1978-79 and they were allowed to hold the balance stock with them at the close of the financial year 1977-78 to sell it during the period of licence for financial year 1978-79. (6). During the continuance of the licence for the financial year 1978-79 the petitioners were served with notice dt. 20.10.78 (Annexure-3) calling upon them to pay Rs.1.84,190.40 as an amount of rebate granted to them under clause 1(Cha) which was required to be withdrawn at the close of the period of licence for 1977-78 on the issue price of the stock remaining unsold on 1.4.78. (7). This order Annexure/3 was challenged before the Board of Revenue by way of revision. By its order dt. 28.01.1983 the board of Revenue set aside the demand notice by holding that the demand has been raised without notice to the petitioners and was in breach of principles of natural justice. (8). Subsequent thereto after hearing the petitioners, order Annexure/5 was made by the District Excise Officer on 22.10.1984 holding the petitioners were responsible for returning the rebate on the issue price of the closing stock for 1977-78 amounting to the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,84,190.40. He was of the opinion that condition No.1(cha) would not be applicable only in case where the licence lifts in the current period of licence the quantity of liquor in excess of quantity covered under the guarantee amount, otherwise to the extent the country liquor has been issued within the guarantee amount, any rebate has been availed by the petitioners during the last previous year that benefit he cannot continue to retain on the sale of said excisable article on the subsequent year. (9). This decision of the District Excise Officer was affirmed on appeal by the Commissioner of Excise vide his order dt. 31.12.1984. The learned Commissioner was of the opinion that benefit of 25(ka) is applicable only in case the licensee has lifted the liquor more than the required amount of guarantee otherwise he is not entitled to that benefit. (10). The order was challenged before the Board of Revenue by way of revision. 31.12.1984. The learned Commissioner was of the opinion that benefit of 25(ka) is applicable only in case the licensee has lifted the liquor more than the required amount of guarantee otherwise he is not entitled to that benefit. (10). The order was challenged before the Board of Revenue by way of revision. The Board of Revenue did not interfere with the orders passed by the Excise Authorities by holding that the order has been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicants and it does not appear reasonable to interfere in that order. This order was passed on 17.7.90 (Annexure-8). (11). Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that combined reading of condition 1(cha) and 25(ka) leads to unmistakable conclusion that at the close of year on the expiry of the licence the account must be squared up in respect of stock remaining with the licensee. The licensee must account for rebate availed by him. On that stock the Excise Department must return the price of stock charged from him namely, the issue price without taking into account the containers expenses and other levies on such liquor to the licensee and the licensee is required to return the stocks as per the directions of the Excise Officer. Exception to this squaring up is envisaged under Rule 25ka) by providing that where licence for the subsequent year is also granted to the same person, instead of returning the closing stocks, he may be allowed to deal with the said stock after informing the concerned Excise Authorities subject to condition that said goods shall not be sold outside the territory of the town where the shop is situated and this permission to sell the remaining stock shall be in addition to amount of guarantee payable under the current contract and the quantity of liquor required to be lifted. Therefore, the two conditions are integral and inter linked and cannot be read in isolation. The rebate on the unsold stock can only be required to be returned in case unsold stock is required to be returned. Where goods are not returned and allowed to be sold, then rebate allowed to a licensee for selling the same also cannot be withdrawn. (12). Mr. The rebate on the unsold stock can only be required to be returned in case unsold stock is required to be returned. Where goods are not returned and allowed to be sold, then rebate allowed to a licensee for selling the same also cannot be withdrawn. (12). Mr. Ashok Chhangani, learned counsel for the State, supporting, the orders passed by the Excise Authorities, has contended that grant of licence for each year is independent transaction and that transaction comes to an end at the close of the year by squaring of the account. The licence for subsequent year is an independent transaction and facility of selling the remaining stock is only a privilege granted to the petitioners in addition to new licence permitting them to deal in the stock remaining with him instead of returning the same to the Excise Department, which otherwise would have resulted in return of issue price. Thus, he is allowed to retain the stock at the issue price and deal with same for the subsequent year in addition to the quantity of liquor required to be lifted by him under the new contract for the privilege amount payable by him thereunder. No new amount is payable by the petitioners for the quantity of stock allowed to be retained by him. Thus, by allowing the licensee to retain the stock in lieu of return of issue price results in squaring up of account. This facility he cannot use for fulfilling his independent obligation under the new licence, by adjusting the old stock against requirement of lifting new stocks. (13). Chapter VI of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 deals with licence of country liquor and intoxicating drugs. Rule 57 envisages the licence for the retail sale of excisable may be granted either by auction or on commission basis or any other system sanctioned by the Government from time to time. The guarantee system is envisaged under Rule 67-A. Licence issued under the guarantee system envisages that the country liquor under the guarantee system may be granted to persons guaranteeing to draw from a Government warehouse and sell, in a financial year or part thereof, country liquor or a specified value equal to amount of guarantee money. The guarantee system is envisaged under Rule 67-A. Licence issued under the guarantee system envisages that the country liquor under the guarantee system may be granted to persons guaranteeing to draw from a Government warehouse and sell, in a financial year or part thereof, country liquor or a specified value equal to amount of guarantee money. Value for the purpose of adjusting guarantee money shall be total issue price at a Government warehouse calculated at the rate of such price current on the first day of January preceding the financial year to which the guarantee relates. (14). Thus, it is apparent that licence granted for retail of country liquor is on annual basis on the existing terms and conditions and guarantee money for each year for the retail shop at which liquor is to be supplied to the licensee, depends on the issue price determining at the Government warehouse, as on 1st of January. In the very nature of things, unless otherwise provided, the terms of licence of one year are not projected in the subsequent year automatically even if the licence is granted to very same person on similar terms and conditions. (15). It is also well settled that trading under liquor is not a part of fundamental right but it is a matter of privilege granted by the State which is squarely governed by the terms and conditions of the licence under which the same is granted. (16). (15). It is also well settled that trading under liquor is not a part of fundamental right but it is a matter of privilege granted by the State which is squarely governed by the terms and conditions of the licence under which the same is granted. (16). The relevant terms and conditions of the licence for the year 1977-78 under which the present controversy has arisen read as under: 1- ¼d½ ykbZlsUl/kkjh dks jktLFkku vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1950 dh /kkjk 24 ,oa 30 rFkk jktLFkku vkcdkjh fu;e] 1956 ds fu;e la[;k 67¼>k½ ds v/khu ,dkdh-foks"kkf/kdkj ds fy, ykbZlsUl vof/k dh fu/kkZfjr Hkqxrku dh jkfk ds :i;s ¼vadksa esa½ --------------------------------¼kCnksa esa½----------------------------- tek djkus gksaxsA ;g jkfk vkcdkjh kqYd] vxj dksbZ gS] rks ds vfrfjDr gksxhA ¼[k½ mijksDr fu/kkZfjr jkfk esa ls mldh ,d izfrkr jde vFkok 1000 :i;k izfr nqdku] tks Hkh de gks] ykbZlsUl izkIr djrs le; gh udn tek djkuh gksxhA ¼x½ mijksDr jkfk ¼^[k* esa of.kZr½ tek gks tkus ds ckn cdk;k jde cjkcj ekfld fdrksa esa tek djkuh gksxh vkSj izR;sd eghus dh fdr vkxkeh eghus dh 10 rkjh[k rd jkT; dks"k esa tek djkuh gksxhA bl ekgokjh fdr ds izfr mDr eghus ¼ftl eghus dh fdr ns; gks½ ykbZlsUl/kkjh }kjk ljdkjh xksnke ls fy, x, kjkc dh ek=k ij] ykbZlsUl dh vof/k ds iwoZ ds foRrh; o"kZ dh 1 tuojh dks izpfyr nj ls fuxZe ewY; ds 80 izfrkr rd /kujkfk dk fjcsV fn;k tkosxkA ysfdu ;g fjcsV ml eghus dh fdr jkfk rd gh lhfer gksxk ijUrq vxj ekg vizsy] ebZ o twu esa ykbZlsUl/kkjh ekfld fu/kkZfjr fdr ls vf/kd fjcsV izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gks tk;sxk rks bl izdkj dh vf/kd fjcsV dh jkfk mldks ekg tqykbZ] vxLr o flrEcj esa jgh ekfld deh] ;fn dksbZ gks] ds izfr lek;ksftr djok ldsxkA ¼?k½ ;fn fufpr rkjh[k rd fdr dh jde tek ugha gks ldh rks ykbZlsUl nsus okys vf/kdkjh dks krZ la[;k 2 ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA ykbZlsUl/kkjh }kjk flD;ksfjVh ds :i esa tek djkbZ xbZ jde ;fn og ykbZlsUl dh fdlh krZ ds mYya?ku esa ;k p<+h fdr ckdh jgus ds dkj.k tCr ugha gqbZ gksxh rks krZ la[;k 1¼x½ esa of.kZr jkfk dh vfUre fdr esa ckn nh tk ldsxhA ftyk vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd og ykbZlsUl/kkjh ls flD;ksfjVh ds :i esa yh xbZ jkfk ds vykok eksrfcj tekur Hkh ys ldsxkA ¼M+½ i;kZIr dkj.k gksus ij vkcdkjh vk;qDr ds vknsk ls krZ la[;k 1¼x½ esa of.kZr ekfld fdr ds Hkqxrku ds fjcsV dh x.kuk ds fy, mDr ekg esa csph gqbZ kjkc esa] vkxkeh ekg dh 10 rkjh[k rd csph gqbZ kjkc lfEefyr dh tk ldsxh] ckrsZ fd bl rjg fiNys ekg ds fjcsV ds fy, kfkey dh xbZ kjkc ij nwljh ekg esa fjcsV izkIr ugha gksxhA ¼p½ ,dkdh foks"kkf/kdkj dh fu/kkZfjr jkfk ds Hkqxrku ds izfr krZ la[;k 1¼x½ esa of.kZr fjcsV dks x.kuk esa ykbZlsUl dh lekfIr pkgs ykbZlsUl ds fujLr gksus ls ;k vU;Fkk ij cps gq, kjkc ds LVkd dh /kujkfk ij nh xbZ fjcsV vekU; dh tkdj ckn dh nh tkosxhA 25- ¼d½ ykbZlsUl dh vof/k lekIr gksus ij ;k ykbZlsUl jí djus dh nkk esa ykbZlsUl/kkjh dk drZO; gksxk fd reke kjkc dk LVkWd o fglkc dk jftLVj gyds ds vkcdkjh fujh{kd dks lkSais ns ;k ks"k LVkWd dh fjiksVZ djs o tks vuqnsk fn;k tk;s mlds vuqlkj kjkc ds LVkWd ds fo"k; esa dk;Zokgh djs ;fn ykbZlsUl/kkjh dk LVkWd fof/kuqdwy izdkj ls tCr ugha fd;k x;k gS rks og blls LVkWd ds Ø; dh dher fuxZe ewY; dh nj ls ikus dk gdnkj gksxkA ijUrq o"kZ 1977-78 dk ykbZlsUlh vxj o"kZ 1978-79 esa dksbZ nqdku ;k nqdkusa fQj ikus esa lQy gks tk;sxk rks mls ;g lqfo/kk miyC/k gksxh fd o"kZ 1977-78 esa ml nqdku ij cspus ls ks"k jgh kjkc dh ek=k dh vkcdkjh foHkkx dks lwpuk nsdj og mls viuh vf/kd`r nqdku@nqdkuksa ij o"kZ 1978&79 esa cpsus ls ks"k jgh efnjk 1977&78 dh ml nqdku ds kgj@dLcs@xzke ls ckgj ugha ys tkuk iM+rk gksA o"kZ 1978&79 dh ,dkdh foks"kkf/kdkj dh iw.kZ jkfk blds vfrfjDr fu;ekuqlkj ns; gksxhA ¼[k½ mijksDr krZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds vUrxZr dh tkus okyh dk;Zokgh ds vfrfjDr ykbZlsUl/kkjh ds fo:) bl ykbZlsUl vof/k dh ;k blls iwoZ ds o"kksZ dh vxj dksbZ cdk;k gksxh rks krZ la[;k 25¼d½ ds vuqlkj ns; jkfk esa ls ,slh cdk;k jkfk ckn dh tk ldsxhA** (17). From the perusal of the aforesaid terms it is apparent that rebate on the payment of instalment of the guarantee money envisages under clause (ga) is a device to ensure timely payment of instalments due under the contract. Guarantee money payable under the term after deposit of the initial amount in sub-clause (kha) of clause 1 is divide into monthly instalment and, by the tenth of each month instalment payable for the previous month has to be deposited. The licensee is entitled to rebate only to the extent of amount of minimum of instalment of the minimum guarantee. If he lifts liquor in addition to the minimum amount of the quantity required under the instalment, no rebate is payable on such additional drawal in respect of the issue price of liquor. (18). It also envisages that if the licensee becomes entitled to rebate amount during first three months (April, May & June) of the licence in excess of the instalment of the guarantee amount payable, and if there is shortfall in deposit for the succeeding months of July, August a.09.the excess rebate amount earned can be adjusted against the said shortfall so as to save the licensee from being a defaulter and from consequences thereof. From Clause (ga) it may be noticed that no such rebate is permissible to be adjusted of any shortfall after September. (19). Likewise, on sufficient reasons Commissioner may permit the additional amount of liquor lifted during any previous month during the shortfall within the next month. This is also apparent from the fact that the liquor in respect of which rebate has been availed in the previous month again cannot be counted for the benefit of subsequent months. (20). With this scheme clause (cha) requires that at the close of the licence, whether on account of its cancellation or on account of the expiry of the period, any stock remains with the licensee on which rebate has been availed, the concession of rebate will not be allowed to be retained and that will have to be recalled in conclusion of the licence, whether because licence comes to an end in ordinary course, on expiry of is full period, or otherwise it has been terminated prematuredly for any reasons, because of any breach of condition by the licensee. Therefore, the recalling of the rebate on the balance stock is not connected with successful completion of period of licence but as a consequence of closure of the licence for whatever reason. (21). However, it is to be noticed that recalling the rebate does not necessarily result in return of the issue price to the licence for example where licence has been cancelled and stocks have been confiscated the question of return of issue price for such confiscated article would not arise notwithstanding recalling the rebate on termination of licence. On recalling of such rebate as has been availed by a licensee in respect of quantity of liquor issued to the licence during the live period of licence, the only question remains between the State and the licensee about the adjustment of price of the stock remaining with the licensee namely the issue price charged from the licensee on the issue of liquor whether within the limits of guarantee money or in excess of guarantee money. (22). In the aforesaid context if 25(ka) is read it conveys normal consequence of successful culmination of the contract period, when with certain stocks remaining with the licensee, whether lifted by him within the quantity envisaged for the guarantee money or in excess of it, whether in respect of it he has availed the benefit of rebate or not, in case the stock has not been confiscated in accordance with law of termination of the period of licence, the licence is required to return the remaining stock with him and take back in return, the issue price of such stocks irrespective of it having been subjected to rebate or not from Issuing Officer. This is so because recalling of rebate is independent of return of stock. It happens in both the cases, whether stock is returned by licensee or confiscated by authority of law. Return of consideration is envisaged only in former case. The person who is obliged to return the stocks, he will be entitled to avail the opportunity that instead of returning the remaining stock of country liquor left with him at the close of the 1977-78 to the concerned authority, he may sell the same at the retail outlets for which he has been licensed again for 1978-79 within the territory of city, town or village in which he was holding licence. The position makes it very clear that extension of this benefit would not affect the obligation of the licensee for 1978-79 to fulfil his obligation of paying the guarantee money to the State, in full, nor the licensee is entitled to avail this opportunity availed towards discharge of his obligation under current contracts. (23). Thus, at the close of the year by recalling rebate and requiring the licensee to return the unsold stock of the liquor to the concerned authority, the contract of guarantee under the terms thereunder for the year 1977-78 come to an end. For the succeeding year 1978-79, the licensee is governed by the new contract. The consequence is that at the close of the guarantee contract of the year 1977-78, the account is squared up by recalling the rebate on the unsold goods, and licensee is entitled to secure the issue price on return of stocks, leaving the succeeding years retaining to be governed under the new licence. Apparently contract having come to the close, a facility has been extended to the existing licensee, if he is otherwise entitled, for the succeeding year because of his new licence has may continue to sell the old stocks with him subject to conditions referred to above. (24). Thus, in addition to the privilege on the terms and conditions of the new licence only additional privilege outside the same has been given for permitting the licensee to sell the remaining stock-in-trade without obligation to return the same. Obviously if stocks are not to be returned the question of refund of issue price will also not arise. The rebate is permissible only on the issue price of the liquor lifted only to the extent of the instalment money payable for each month towards guarantee money for the licence in force and not more. The licensee would be entitled to any additional rebate. (25). It may be viewed from another angle that if the terms and conditions of licence of 1977-78 is literally implemented by recalling the rebate followed with return of the stock in trade and repayment of the issue price to licensee and thereafter the same stock is issued, under the successive licence to the same person, he is entitled to get rebate only to the extent of the guarantee money of the contract and not in respect of quantity lifted by the licensee in addition thereto. If the licensee lifts and sell the quantity of liquor, in addition to the liquor required to be lifted under the guarantee money of 1978-79, no rebate is permissible on that additional quantity of liquor lifted by the succeeding licensee. Since stock under previous years licensee is allowed to be sold under the current years only in addition to terms of guarantee money and not in lieu of it, the status of this additional quantity of liquor allowed to be sold cannot be better than additional amount of liquor which the licensee can lift under the running contract. Thus, he is not entitled to retain the benefit of rebate on stock remaining unsold at the close of licence for 1977-78 and he is not entitled to rebate on additional quantity of liquor lifted for licence period 1978-79. (26). Before parting with the discussion, it may be observed that the orders of the Board of Revenue do suffer from the vice of a non-speaking order as it gives no reason for its order except that the orders of the lower authorities have been passed after giving opportunity of hearing, no reasons have been given for agreeing on he merit of the issue on the construction of two terms for the licence. Be that as it may I have come to the conclusion that on true construction of the two terms of the licence as aforesaid, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, no interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Arts. 226 & 227. (27). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I find the petition devoid of merit. (28). Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.