Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of Member Board of Revenue dated 17.10.2001 in Case No. 87 of 2001, upholding, with some modification, the order of the Excise Commissioner dated16.4.2001 in Excise Appeal No. 112/99 arising out of the order of the Collector, Nalanda dated 15.6.99 in Misc. Case No. 51/96. He also seeks a direction upon the respondents to accept payment of licence fee @ Rs. 9500/- per month, to adjust the amount already paid viz., Rs. 92,101/- against the total liability at the aforesaid rate i.e. Rs. 9500/- for the period 1996-97. The dispute relates to a liquor shop and the facts of the case are as follows. 2. The petitioner took settlement of an India Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) shop at Islampur in Nalanda district for the year 1996-97 on payment of monthly licence fee of Rs. 23,101/- on 24.6.96. The case of the petitioner is that he was a novice to the profession and "without considering the pros and cons of the business" had bid the said amount at the auction. Later he experienced a lot of difficulties in running the business and paying the licence fee because a large number of illegal shops were running around years the settlement did not exceed Rs. 9000/-. In the circumstances, on 8.10.96 he filed application to surrender the licence under Section 44 of the Bihar Excise Act and finally closed the business by the end of October 1996. 3. It may be mentioned here that at the time of settlement the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 92,101/- being, approximately, the licence fee for four months in terms of the Sale Notification on 24.6.96. He did not make any-further deposit. In fact, within four months of the grant he surrendered the licence. 4. The case of the department is that the petitioner had himself on his own bid Rs. 23,101/- at the auction against the reserve fee of Rs. 8580/-. Before making the offer he should have assured himself about the level of consumption of foreign liquor in the area. He cannot be allowed to say that being novice to the business he had no idea about the prospects of profit and loss and thus could not be allowed to surrender the licence. 8580/-. Before making the offer he should have assured himself about the level of consumption of foreign liquor in the area. He cannot be allowed to say that being novice to the business he had no idea about the prospects of profit and loss and thus could not be allowed to surrender the licence. Such surrender can be permitted only on payment of entire amount of licence fee under Section 44(1)(b) of the Bihar Excise Act. 5. The Collector Nalanda accepted the case petitioner on 15.6.99. He held that the petitioner was liable to pay the balance amount of licence fee for the remaining period. On appeal, on 16.4.2001 the Excise Commissioner modified the order by directing that while the petitioner would be liable to pay the licence fee at Rs. 23,101/- for a period of one month, being the notice period as he was required to give one months notice to surrender the licence, but for the remaining period he would be liable to pay @ Rs. 9500/-. It may be mentioned here that the shop appears to have been settled at the monthly licence fee of Rs. 9500/- in the next year i.e. 1997- 98 which the Excise Commissioner treated as the basis for determining the petitioners liability for the remaining part of the settlement year 1996-97. It is also worth mentioning that in modifying the order of the Collector to the aforesaid extent the Excise Commissioner took the view that the surrender of licence under Section 44 of the Excise Act depends on sweet will of the licensee, and the licensee surrendering the licence is liable to make good the loss of revenue on account of fresh settlement and grant of fresh licence. However, in the instant case, no step had been taken by the Collector to settle the shop during the remaining part of the year. The application for surrender, in fact, was kept pending until 15.6.99 when the impunged order was passed. Not satisfied with the above order of the Excise Commissioner the petitioner preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. The member, Board of Reveune, observing that the Excise Commissioner had taken a very fair stand and the matter did not require any interference, dismissed the revision. 6. Not satisfied with the above order of the Excise Commissioner the petitioner preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. The member, Board of Reveune, observing that the Excise Commissioner had taken a very fair stand and the matter did not require any interference, dismissed the revision. 6. Shri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a licensee has right to surrender his excise licence under Section 44 of the Bihar Excise Act and he is liable to merely compensate the loss but as no step was taken in the instant case to settle the shop afresh for the remaining part of the period, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount determined. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances the petitioners liability should be fixed @ Rs. 9500/- for whole of the year and the amount already paid by him at the time of settlement on 24.6.96 be adjusted. 7. It is true that no person can be compelled to carry on business against his will. In a sense that is true of trade in intoxicants as well. However, trade in intoxicants stands on a different footing. It is well settled that the State enjoys exclusive privilege of trade in intoxicants in all its forms, though it may part with such privilege in favour of a private individuals on terms. The terms and conditions are mentioned in sale notification and the licence besides those incorporated in the Bihar Excise Act and the Rules framed by the State Government and/or the Board of Revenue under Sections 89 and 90 the said Act. The different provisions of the Act, Rules, licence including the sale notification are intended to serve twin objectto regulate the trade so that the illicit sale of liquor does not take place, securing at the same time revenue to the State. Settlement by public auction is a mode of parting with the privilege so that the persons desirous of taking settlement may participate in the auction, ensuring maximum as a result of competitive bidding by them. Where a shop is settled but during currency and in the midst of settlement the licensee wants to walk out, it not only results in loss of revenue in the shape of licence fee, besides excise duty chargeable on actual sale of liquor, it also results in clandestine sale of liquor through unlicenced shops. Where a shop is settled but during currency and in the midst of settlement the licensee wants to walk out, it not only results in loss of revenue in the shape of licence fee, besides excise duty chargeable on actual sale of liquor, it also results in clandestine sale of liquor through unlicenced shops. Such clandestine sale also affects the States revenue because it deprives the State of not only the licence fee but excise duty as well chargeable on the sale of liquor. Thus the States sufferance is two pronged. It is for this reason that trade in liquor stands on different footing and though a person cannot be compelled to carry on such trade, he cannot also be allowed to leave the business at will as and when he likes. That is why the right to surrender the Excise Licence has been hedged in by certain conditions under Section 44 of the Excise Act. 8. At this stage it would be useful to notice Section 44, so far as relevant, as under : 44. Surrender of licence. (1) Any holder of a licence granted under this Act to sell an intoxicant may, unless his licence is liable to cancellation or suspension under section 42, surrender the same (a) on the expiration of one months notice in writing given by him to the Collector of his intention to surrender it, and (b) on payment of the fees payable for the licence for the whole period for which it would have been current but for such surrender Provided that, if the Excise Commissioner is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the surrender of a licence, he may remit to the holder thereof the sum so payable on surrender, and any fees paid in advance or any portion of such sum of fees. (2)............ Explanation...... From a bare reading of the above provision it is evident that a licensee of an intoxicant may surrender the licence but on payment of fees payable for the whole period for which he would have been liable provided the licence has not been rendered liable to be revoked or cancelled. The Excise Commissioner has been empowered to remit the fee payable if he is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for surrender of the licence. The Excise Commissioner has been empowered to remit the fee payable if he is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for surrender of the licence. The fact that power of remission can be exercised only when in the opinion of the Excise Commissioner there is "sufficient reason" for the surrender of the licence indicates that surrender cannot be without a reason as the Excise Commissioner Seems to suggest. As noticed above, the only reason which the petitioner assigned while surrendering the licence was that he was a novice to the business and several illegal shops were running around the shop in question. But this can hardly be said to be a reason within the meaning of Section 44(1) proviso because before participating in the auction and making bids the petitioner should have shown due prudence and diligence. He should have known, as stated by him in the writ petition itself, that the reserve jama of the shop was only Rs. 8580/- and that the monthly licence fee did not exceed Rs. 9000/- in the previous years. It is also difficult to accept the plea that within four months of taking settlement he came to know about the existence of illegal shops. 9. In the above premises, I have grave doubts if it was a fit case for remission in exercise of power under proviso to Section 44(1). However it is not necessary to pursue this aspect of the matter for the reason that the State did not challenge the order of the Excise Commissioner before the Board of Revenue though submissions were made by the learned Standing Counsel to find fault with the order. 10. Adverting to the grievance of the petitioner, it is true that the Collector did not take steps to make fresh settlement for the remainder of the period; perhaps, he thought that the, period was not long enough to justify a mid-term settlement. Besides, a Misc. Case had been filed before him which was pending. Be that as it may, though the petitioner was otherwise liable to pay the licence fee @ Rs. Besides, a Misc. Case had been filed before him which was pending. Be that as it may, though the petitioner was otherwise liable to pay the licence fee @ Rs. 23,101/- for the subsequent months of the settlement period, the Excise Commissioner treating the amount at which the settlement was made in the subsequent year i.e. 1997-98 as the basis, remitted the licence fee to that extent with the result the petitioner is liable to pay licence fee for those months only @ Rs. 9500/- besides Rs. 23,101/- for one months notice period. As the State has been put to loss of revenue not only on account of non-payment of agreed licence fee but also on account of non-payment of the excise duty on presumptive illicit sale of liquor, he cannot escape the liability to pay the amount ordered by the Excise Commissioner. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.