ORDER A.K. Gohil, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned demand notice (Annexure-P/18) dated 17-9-2001, issued to him by the respondent No. 4, demanding a sum of Rs. 70,05,875/-, being balance amount of licence fees for selling foreign liquor and prayed for quashment of the same. Admittedly, tenders for grant of licence for selling country and foreign liquor in district Ujjain, for the period 9-5-2001 to 31-3-2002, were invited. The petitioner applied for grant of licence to sale foreign liquor in Chhatri Chowk, Ujjain, which was granted to him and as per condition of licence he had to deposit licence fees Rs. 91,34,580/-, in monthly instalments, between 9-5-2001 to 6-7-2001. The petitioner deposited only a sum of Rs. 9,86,505/-, It is also admitted that on 7-7-2001 the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. In the petition, the submission of the petitioner is that he could not run the liquor shop satisfactorily due to competition and he was running in losses, as such, he surrendered his licence. Further submission of the petitioner is that he had also applied for beer licence and had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, but the same was not granted. He had also applied for permission to store his goods in the godown, but the said permission was not granted. He had also applied for permission to purchase certain brands of liquor from outside Ujjain as the same were not available there, but the said permission too was not granted. He sought permission to deposit licence fee in instalments, but the same was also refused. In nut shell his case is that he himself has surrendered the licnece, therefore, he is not liable to pay the said amount. He also claimed for adjustment of Rs. 11,42,200/- and for refund of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was deposited for obtaining beer licence. In reply, the state has denied the allegations and submitted that as per the terms of licence the petitioner has not deposited the licence fees in time despite issuance of various notices viz., notices Annexures-P/9, P/11, P/12 and P/13 dated 25-4-2001, 12-6-2001, 2-7-2001 and 5-7-2001 respectively and, thereafter, vide order (Annexure-P/15) dated 7-7-2001 his licence was cancelled. In reply, the state has denied the allegations and submitted that as per the terms of licence the petitioner has not deposited the licence fees in time despite issuance of various notices viz., notices Annexures-P/9, P/11, P/12 and P/13 dated 25-4-2001, 12-6-2001, 2-7-2001 and 5-7-2001 respectively and, thereafter, vide order (Annexure-P/15) dated 7-7-2001 his licence was cancelled. The case of the respondent-State is that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the licence and has not deposited the licence fees, therefore, the respondent had no option but to cancel the licnece and to recover the balance amount from the petitioner. It was further submitted that the demand notice has not been replied. The same has been legally issued. It is not in dispute that after cancellation of petitioner's licence the respondents tried to reauction the shop, but failed and, therefore, the State was compelled to run the same. In rejoinder submitted on behalf of the State it has been stated that till 31-3-2002, after deducting the expenses, the State earned a profit of Rs. 14,13,300/-. Therefore, the State has also deducted the aforesaid amount from the recoverable amount, as per the provisions of section 31(4)(b) of the Excise Act and submission of Shri Mukati is that now, as per Annexure-P/18, instead of Rs. 70,05,875/-, an amount of Rs. 55,92,575/- is recoverable from the petitioner. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the respondents Shri Mukati submitted that out of the total licence fees the State has already adjusted the amount of earnest money Rs. 11,42,200/- and has also provided credit of Rs. 9,86,505/-, His further submission is that out of the total licence fees Rs. 91,34,580/-, after adjusting Rs. 21,28,580/-, a sum of Rs. 70,05,875/- were due on 17-9-2001, as per Annexure-P/18 and as on the date of submitting rejoinder a sum of Rs. 55,92,575/- was due against the petitioner after giving credit of Rs. 14,13,300/-. Therefore, from the aforesaid submissions it is clear that the State has already granted adjustment of the amount of security deposited, and the profit earned from the shop and for that the petitioner has no claim. It is also an admitted position in the petition that the petitioner has not challenged the order of cancellation of licence (Annexure-P/15) dated 6/7-7-2001, which became final. It is also an admitted position in the petition that the petitioner has not challenged the order of cancellation of licence (Annexure-P/15) dated 6/7-7-2001, which became final. Shri Mukati submitted that when the petitioner came to know about the cancellation of licence on 7-7-2001, he wrote a letter about surrendering the same, which appears to be correct. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that he himself had surrendered the licence. Shri Mukati has rightly pointed out that a procedure has been prescribed u/s 33 of the Act for surrendering a licence, which he has not followed. It was also submitted that the licence of the beer bar for the period 9-5-2001 to 31-3-2003 was granted to him, but in the petition he has suppressed the material facts. Shri Mukati submitted that though the petitioner had applied for permission of godown, but the other formalities which were required to be followed were not complied with, therefore, the permission could not be granted. The petitioner was also not legally entitled for the other permissions, as pleaded, therefore, they were not granted to him. Shri Mukati further submits that in the petition, petitioner has suppressed many material facts and it appears that the same has been filed with a view to delay the recovery proceedings otherwise prima facie there is no merit in the case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after examining the record and documents it is clear that the demand notice has rightly been issued and the petitioner could not make out a case for interference by this Court in this petition. When he has not challenged the order of cancellation of licence (Annexure-P/15) in the petition, he cannot challenge the demand notice. The State has already satisfied all the objections, which were raised by the petitioner about the issue of demand notice and also about balance of final amount. This statement on behalf of the State also appears to be correct that the petition has been filed to delay the recovery proceedings. Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed, with cost of Rs. 10,000/- Final Result : Dismissed