Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Purnendu Singh, JC to AG representing the State. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic preparations, including preparations with alcohol as one of the ingredients. For manufacturing produce with alcohol as one of the ingredients, the petitioner needs a license in Form-L1 and ND 1 under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. The petitioner is before the Court with the grievance that the Excise authorities are denying if the renewal of its aforesaid manufacturing licenses. 3. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the record of the case, it appears that the issue of renewal of the petitioners license for production of alcoholic medicines is stuck up in the controversy with regard to payment of license fee for wholesale and retail sale of Ayurvedic preparations under Rule 93A of the Bihar Excise Rules. 4. It may be noted that Rule 93A was introduced in the Bihar Excise Rules under the heading Wholesale and Retail Sale of Ayurvedic Preparations Manufactured under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, Capable of Being Used As Ordinary Alcoholic Beverage by a notification, dated 3.8.88. The rule laid down that Ayurvedic preparations capable of being used as ordinary alcoholic beverage could be sold either in retail or in wholesale only under proper licenses granted on payment of license fees. It is important to note here that different rates of fees were fixed for wholesale and retail licenses. 5. The provisions of rule 93A came under challenge and were struck down by this Court by its decision in CWJC No. 7865 of 1988 and other cases, reported in 1990(2) BLJ 501 (Shree Baidya Nath Ayurved Bhavan and others vs. State of Bihar and others). The matter went in appeal before the Supreme Court and the apex court in State of Bihar vs. Baidya Nath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. [( 2005) 2 SCC 762 : 2005(2) PLJR (SC) 48] reversed the order of the High Court and upheld the validity of rule 93A. The matter went in appeal before the Supreme Court and the apex court in State of Bihar vs. Baidya Nath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. [( 2005) 2 SCC 762 : 2005(2) PLJR (SC) 48] reversed the order of the High Court and upheld the validity of rule 93A. Resultantly, an incidental question arose with regard to the liability for payment of license fees for the period when the rule was struck down by the High Court and when it was again revived on the basis of the judgment of the apex court.ln its decision in State of Bihar vs. Baidya Nath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court directed that the liability for payment of the license fees for the interregnum would rest with the manufacturer of the alcoholic medicines. 6. It is, therefore, undeniable that the liability for payment of the license fees for wholesale and retail sales of its produce for the period 1988-89 to 2004-05 rests with the petitioner and as a matter of fact the petitioner does not dispute its liability. 7. This leads to the question as to the number of dealers/employees authorised by the petitioner for selling its alcohol-based produce during the aforesaid period. The petitioner disclosed before the excise authorities that during the aforesaid period it had 916 sole agents in the undivided State of Bihar and after the division of the State, with effect from 15.11.2000, the number of sole agents in Bihar came down to 796; the remainring 120 being in the State of Jharkhand. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that out of 916 sole agents in the undivided State, 764 were retailers and only 148 were selling its produce in wholesale. After the division of the State, the position, according to the petitioner,was that there were 128 wholesalers and 668 retail sellers of its produce. It would be relevant, to recall here that license fee for a wholesale dealer is higher @ Rs. 3000.00 per annum and for a retailer it is only Rs. 1000.00 per annum. 8. The Revenue accepted the number of sole agents as disclosed by the petitioner but treated all of them as wholesalers. According to the Revenue, therefore, the petitioners liability for payment of the arrears of license fee would be the number of all the sole-agents (916) multiplied by Rs. 1000.00 per annum. 8. The Revenue accepted the number of sole agents as disclosed by the petitioner but treated all of them as wholesalers. According to the Revenue, therefore, the petitioners liability for payment of the arrears of license fee would be the number of all the sole-agents (916) multiplied by Rs. 3000/-, whereas according to the petitioner.its liability would be much lower, taking duly into account the numbers of wholesalers and retailers respectively before and after the division of the State. 9. Contesting the demand of the Revenue, the petitioner took the matter before the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 164 of 2005. The Board of Revenue found that the petitioners claim that 764 out of 916 and 668 out 796 were retail sellers was based on the statements given by the respective sole agents but on the other hand the stand of the Revenue that every sole agent was a wholesaler was not supported by any evidence at all. The Board of Revenue accordingly set aside the demand made by the Revenue and directed that an enquiry be made on the issue from the respective District magistrates. From the materials on record it appears that the enquiry is still not complete and reports are awaited from different districts. In the meanwhile the Revenue, purportedly on some other evidence, has reiterated its demand on the basis that every sole agent was a wholeseller and, therefore, liable to pay license fee @ Rs. 3000.00 per annum. 10. The renewal of the manufacturing licenses of the petitioner remains pending/ stuck up in this controvery. 11. On a careful consideration of the relevant materials, we are of the view that refusal to renew the manufacturing licences of the petitioner on the ground of nonpayment of the revenue demand by the excise authority even without completing the enquiry as directed by the Board of Revenue is quite unreasonable, unfair and unjust. The refusal to renew the license is not only unfair to the petitioner but it also leads to the loss of valuable revenue for the State. It may be noted here that demand of the Excise department is for a sum of Rs. 27,48,000.00 (i.e., 916x3000). On the other hand, according to the petitioner, it is liable to pay only Rs. 10,52,000/-. 12. It may be noted here that demand of the Excise department is for a sum of Rs. 27,48,000.00 (i.e., 916x3000). On the other hand, according to the petitioner, it is liable to pay only Rs. 10,52,000/-. 12. In the facts and circumstances stated above, we are satisfied that it would be proper to make the following directions. The Excise Commissioner is directed to renew the petitioners manufacturing license on payment of Rs. 15 lacs towards arrears of license fees under rule 93A of the Rules. It is made clear that this direction is in the nature of interim arrangement and subject to the final order that may be passed by the competent authority on completion of the enquiry. If it is found that the petitioner was liable to pay a higher amount as arrears of license fee, it would be realizable from it in accordance with law. On the other hand, if it is found that the actual liability of the petitioner was lower than Rs. 15 lacs, it would be entitled to refund/adjustment in accordance with law. The renewed licenses would be issued to the peitioner within one month from the date of deposit of Rs. 15 lacs. 13. The petitioner is further directed to extend full cooperation in the enquiry as to which of its sole agents were wholesalers and which of them were retailers. It would produce before the Excise authorities all materials, documents and papers on the issue that may be in its possession. 14. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Purnendu Singh, JC to AG.