Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. The writ petitioners, who deal in liquor, had applied for grant of licence to deal in liquor pursuant to sale notice issued by the State of Bihar. Case of the petitioners was considered by the authorities and bid was finalised in their favour and spiced liquor vend was settled in their favour on 31st March, 2005 in the District of West Champaran, Bettiah. 3. It is contended by Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners that according to finalisation of the bid and settlement of country liquor vend on 31st March, 2005 licence was required to be given to them on 1.4.2005 itself, but the same was given to them on 8th of April, 2007 (Sic 2005?), on account of which they could not operate their liquor vend. It is the next grievance of the petitioners that even after grant of licence on 7th April, 2007 (S/c2005?) required quantity of liquor was not given to them upto 15th of April, 2005, though they had already deposited licence fee and also the money required to be deposited before finalisation of the bid. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that on both counts they were entitled for proportionate remission amounting to rupees twelve lacs and odd. It is lastly submitted by Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners were not at fault and they suffered on account of laches on the part of the vendee, the State of Bihar. 4. In these backgrounds of the facts, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon the Court that the petitioners would be entitled for remission, as they hae not dealt in business. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating therein that immediately after settlement of the liquor vend to the petitioners necessary approval etc. was obtained and licence was granted on 7th April, 2005. 6. So far non-supply of liquor in betwen 8th April to 15th April, 2005 is concerned, the petitioners cannot claim for any compensation or remission in view of the provisions of Clause 20(Kha) of the sale notice. 7. It is not in dispute that the liquor vend is. was obtained and licence was granted on 7th April, 2005. 6. So far non-supply of liquor in betwen 8th April to 15th April, 2005 is concerned, the petitioners cannot claim for any compensation or remission in view of the provisions of Clause 20(Kha) of the sale notice. 7. It is not in dispute that the liquor vend is. the exclusive privilege of the State of Bihar and terms and conditions, as laid down in the sale notice, would be binding upon the vendors. 8. From the materials on record, it appears that the country liquor shop was settled in favour of the petitioners on 31st March, 2005. The auction, however, was approved by the Excise Commissioner on 4.4.2005 as per the requirement of the Rules and approval was obtained on 7.4.2005 and immediately licence was granted to the petitioners. 9. Clause 20(Kha) of the sale notice makes it manifest that in case of non-supply of liquor the State Government would not be obliged to pay any compensation or any remission towards licence fee. It necessarily, therefore, postulates that in case there had been some delay or some laches on the part of the State, the vendor would not be entitled either for compensation or for remission, if any. 10. Clause 20(Kha) of the sale notice has to be read in conjunction with the principles of liquor vend, which is the exclusive privilege of the State of Bihar. 11. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter and the special privilege of the State the petitioners cannot ask for any remission or for any compensation for dealing in liquor on account of any laches on the part of the State of Bihar. 12. Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners, even on insistence could not produce direct judgment oh the point to satisfy the Court to grant relief to the writ petitioners. 13. For the reasons, aforementioned, therefore, we do not find any merit in this application. 14. It is, accordingly, dismissed.