Judgment This appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the order dated 4.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2268 of 2007 alongwith W.P.(C) No. 2234 of 2007, whereby he was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions and thus upheld the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue , wherein it was held that the respondent no.2 was not liable to pay the licence fee for the period during which it had surrendered the licence for the country liquor shop. To appreciate the controversy, it is relevant to state that the respondent no.2 had been granted licence for supply of country liquor along with supply of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and although the supply was to be made for a period of three years, there was a specific agreement between the parties that the licence would be renewed every year and licence fee for each year would be paid by the licensee. Admittedly, the respondent no.2 used the licence for a period of two years in sofar as country liquor is concerned, but after the expiry of two years, the respondent no.2 surrendered his licence for the supply of country liquor and as the licence had been surrendered, the licence fee was also not paid. But the District Collector, Jamshedpur vide order dated 22.3.2006 passed an order refusing to accept the surrender of licence by the respondent no.2, on the ground that the licence for country liquor could not be accepted as the respondent no.2 had not surrendered his licence for IMFL and was surrendering only the licence for the country liquor. Consequently it was ordered that the respondent no.2 is liable to pay the licence fee for the third year also, although the licence had been surrendered. The respondent no.2 assailed the said order before the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand and the Member, Board of Revenue was pleased to allow the application in favour of the respondent no.2. The said order thereafter was assailed by the State of Jharkhand before the learned Single Judge by filing two writ petitions referred to hereinbefore and the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions against which this appeal has been preferred. The said order thereafter was assailed by the State of Jharkhand before the learned Single Judge by filing two writ petitions referred to hereinbefore and the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions against which this appeal has been preferred. Mr.Dilip Kumar Prasad, JC to S.C.(L&C) assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the Member , Board of Revenue and initially submitted that in view of Section 44 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, the respondent no.2 could not have been allowed to surrender his licence only for country liquor as he was retaining the licence of IMFL and in this context he invited the attention of this Court to Section 44 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, which reads as follows : “Surrender of licence. (1) Any holder of a license 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 month’s 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 or fees. (2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply in the case of a licence for the sale of any country liquor or intoxicating drug in the exercise of an exclusive privilege granted under section 22”. Learned Government counsel relying upon sub-section (2) of Section 44 submitted that in view of this provision, the respondent no.2 could not have been permitted to surrender the licence for the country liquor. Learned Government counsel relying upon sub-section (2) of Section 44 submitted that in view of this provision, the respondent no.2 could not have been permitted to surrender the licence for the country liquor. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant in the light of sub-section(2) of Section 44 , it could be instantly noticed that the argument advanced on the interpretation and understanding of sub-section(2) of Section 44 of the said Act is fraught with error as subsection (2) of Section 44 clearly lays down that sub-section (1) shall not apply in the case of a licence for the sale of any country liquor or intoxicating drug , meaning thereby Section 44 shall not apply in the case of surrender of licence for the sale of any country liquor or intoxicating drug in the exercise of an exclusive privilege granted under Section 22. When Section 44 sub section(1) is read in the light of the sub-section (2) , it is instantly clear that while a license is liable to cancellation or suspension, the same could be surrendered on one month’s notice and on payment of fees for the whole period, if it related to the item envisaged u/s 42 and even if it is otherwise the same was not under the embargo of section 44(a) &( b) as it clearly states that sub-section(1) shall not apply in the case of a licence for the sale of any country liquor or intoxicated drugs. From this provision, it is sufficiently clear that there is a condition laid down for surrender of licence which includes one month’s notice and payment of licence fee but the same is not applicable in so far as country liquor is concerned and that is sufficiently clear from sub-section(2) of Section 44 of Bihar Excise Act, 1915. Thus, we find no substance in the argument in sofar as this plea is concerned. The learned Government counsel thereafter submitted that even if it could be held that the licence by the respondent no.2 could be surrendered, for the country liquor, he could not be absolved of the liability to pay the licence fee even for the period during which he had surrendered his licence. The learned Government counsel thereafter submitted that even if it could be held that the licence by the respondent no.2 could be surrendered, for the country liquor, he could not be absolved of the liability to pay the licence fee even for the period during which he had surrendered his licence. But, we find no substance in this contention also, in the light of the explanation and contention which was advanced by the counsel for the respondent no.2, who explained the position and submitted that the licence for country liquor , although had been issued for a period of three years, the condition clearly stipulated that licence would be renewed each year on payment of licence fee, meaning thereby that even though the licence had been granted for a period of three years, the same has to be renewed every year and then licence fee has to be paid separately on year-wise basis. It is , therefore, contended that once the licence was surrendered and the surrender of licence is legally permissible as discussed hereinbefore, the payment of licence fee for the third year when the licence had been duly surrendered , the respondent no.2 cannot be directed to pay the licence fee , as all these conditions are not applicable in sofar as the country liquor is concerned, meaning thereby neither one month’s notice is required for surrender of country made liquor nor payment of licence fee is required. We find sufficient force in this contention, when Section 44 of the Act is read as a whole from which it is clear that if a licensee surrenders his licence prior to the expiry of the term and the Excise Commissioner finds that the surrender is genuine, it is the licensee which has to get the refund for the period during which he has not used the licence. In the instant matter, the respondent no.2 admittedly has already surrendered the licence even before the start of third year and that being clearly permissible under sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Act, 1915 as already stated and the surrender having been held to be legal, the question of payment of licence fee for the period during which the respondent no.2 had not used the licence for country liquor does not arise at all as the respondent had not sought its renewal. We thus find no substance in the appeal. We thus find no substance in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed.