Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1023 (PAT)

Usha Liquors Private Limited v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-08

AFTAB ALAM, S.K.KATRIAR

body2006
Judgment AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. The Petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 10th August, 2005, (Annexure-6) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise by which he rejected their request to return the security deposit of Rs. 1,50,000 submitted in the form of National Saving Certificate(s) and directed for the forfeiture of the amount. 2. The facts of the case are brief and without controversy. The Petitioners were granted the exclusive privilege of manufacture and wholesale supply of spiced country-liquor in Muzaffarpur, Saran and Darbhanga regions for the period 1st July, 1999 to 31st March, 2002. For the grant of the privilege, they had paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as security deposit. Following the grant of privilege, the Petitiorrers were obliged to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 as licence fee for the manufacturing unit and Rs. 50,000 per annum for each warehouse as per condition No. 4 of the letter of the grant. They were also required to establish a sachetting/bottling plant. The Petitioners did not comply with any of those conditions and consequently the privilege granted to them remained ineffective and inoperative. 3. After several years, the Petitioners made an application before the Excise Authorities for refund of the amount of security deposit. By the impugned Order, the Deputy Commissioner, Excise rejected their request and directed for the forfeiture of the amount. 4. Before this Court, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioners presented the case on a limited point, learned Counsel submitted that the security deposit for the grant of the privilege was Rs. 1,50,000. The Petitioner had deposited the amount in the form of National Saving Certificate. With the passage of time, the certificate had matured and its encashable value was now over Rs. 3,00,000. The amount of security deposit being Rs. 1,50,000, the authorities should atleast refund to the Petitioners the balance of the encashable value of the Certificate. 5. At the first instance, the submission appears attractive, but in reality it is devoid of any substance or merit. The condition with regard to the security deposit was contained in the general notice inviting tenders for the grant of the privilege. In paragraph 2 (ka) of the tender notice, it was stipulated that tenders should be submitted along with either a Treasury Challan, showing deposit of Rs. The condition with regard to the security deposit was contained in the general notice inviting tenders for the grant of the privilege. In paragraph 2 (ka) of the tender notice, it was stipulated that tenders should be submitted along with either a Treasury Challan, showing deposit of Rs. 1,50,000 under the relevant head in the Treasury or a National Saving Certificate for that amount, taken out in favour of the Commissioner, Excise, Bihar, by designation. It is significant to note that it is not the case of the Petitioners that they took out the National Saving Certificate in their name and pledged it in favour of the Excise Commissioner. As per the Tender Notice, the National Saving Certificate was taken out in favour of the Excise Commissioner. In other words, it was as good as cash being paid to the State Government in the form of National Saving Certificate. The matter may be seen from a different angle. Had the Petitioners deposited the amount of security deposit in the Treasury, they could not have made any claim on the interest accruing on it during the period of five years. Similarly, they can not claim any right over the amount accumulating in the National Saving Certificate. The matter can be viewed in yet another way. In case the Petitioners had completed the full term of the settlement satisfactorily and without causing any breach of the terms and conditions of the grant of privilege, then indeed the Petitioners would have been entitled to refund of the security deposit. But in that case too, they could not be-given the National Saving Certificate(s) submitted by them because that instrument was issued in favour of the Excise Commissioner and, therefore, it could not be encashed by anyone other than the Excise Commissioner. In that event, they would have received an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 either by cash or by Government Cheque or by any other proper means. 6. Thus, in any case, the Petitioners had no right or interest left in the National Saving Certificate(s) that they deposited as security money for the grant of the privilege. For the reasons discussed above, I see no merit or substance in the Writ Petition. It is dismissed.