Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 205 (MP)

SHAMBHOO MARKETING PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF M. P.

2008-02-06

RAJENDRA MENON

body2008
Judgment Rajendra Menon, J. ( 1. ) Challenging the action of the respondents in refusing to grant adjustment with regard to payment of licence fees for 20 days on the licence / contract granted to the petitioner and impugning the orders in this regard passed by the Excise Commissioner and the Board of Revenue as contained in Annexure P/2 dated 20th March, 2001 and Annexure P/l dated 3rd July, 2002, petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2. ) For the financial year 2000-01, the Excise Commissioner, M.P., issued a policy for granting licence with regard to sale of country liquor and foreign liquor. The said liquor policy for the year in question is Annexure P/ll at page 81 of the paper book. The petitioner claims to be a company registered under the Companies Act having its head office in Mumbai and it is stated that they are excise contractors. The dispute in question pertains to Malipur groin of shops situated in the district of Ujjain. On 7th March, 2000, notification was issued with regard to the auction of these group of shops. Auction took place at Ujjain on 23rd March, 2000 in which M./s Shivam Enterprises submitted the highest bid of Rs. 9,90,00,101/- for the entire group of shops. As the bid submitted was more than 4.00 crores, it was necessary, as per the policy to refer the same to the Excise Commissioner for approval and finalisation. This was a condition stipulated in clause 6 of the tender notice. In the meanwhile, petitioner who had not participated in the bid for the aforesaid group of shops, on 29th March, 2000 submitted a application vide Annexurc P/3 expressing his willingness to offer a amount 10% more than the bid submitted by M/s Shivam Enterprises, i.e., Rs. 10,89,00, 111/- and also expressed his willingness to deposit a amount of Rs.2.00 crores as required under the policy, Annexure P/ll. Accepting the aforesaid offer submitted by the petitioner, the Excise Commissioner passed a order on 31st March, 2000 cancelling the auction conducted on 23rd March, 2000 and directed for conducting re-auction of the shops in question. The order passed by the Excise Commissioner in this regard is filed as Annexure R/l. In the meanwhile, being aggrieved by this order passed by the Excise Commissioner on 31st March, 2000, M/s Shivam Enterprises filed W.P. No. 789/2000 before the Indore Bench on 03rd April, 2000. The order passed by the Excise Commissioner in this regard is filed as Annexure R/l. In the meanwhile, being aggrieved by this order passed by the Excise Commissioner on 31st March, 2000, M/s Shivam Enterprises filed W.P. No. 789/2000 before the Indore Bench on 03rd April, 2000. Simultaneously, the process of re-auction as ordered by the Excise Commissioner was in progress and the Collector, Ujjain commenced the auction and fixed 7th April, 2000 as the date for re-auction. Notice for re-auction was published vide Annexure P/4 on 7th April, 2000 and the date of auction was fixed as 10th April, 2000. Auction was held and petitioners bid for Rs. 12,82,05,101/- was accepted. However as the proceedings were pending in the High Court at Indore, the Excise Department continued running of the shops from 1st April, 2000 and was running the shops when the auction was held on 10th April, 2000. After the re-auction proceedings were concluded, it seems that the licence was not granted to the petitioner due to pendency of the writ petition and the High Court dismissed the writ petition filled by M/s Shivam Enterprises on 20th April, 2000, therefore, immediately on the next date, licence was granted to the petitioner and the petitioner started functioning on the basis of the licence granted. Licence granted to the petitioner on 21st April, 2000 is filed by the respondents as Annexure R/2. Against the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 789/2000, a L.P.A., was filed by Shivam Enterprises which, was registered as L.P.A. No. 99/2000 and the said appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 12th May, 2000. Copies of the orders passed in the writ petition and the LPA are brought on record as Annexure P/15 and P/16 at page 139 and 143 of the paper book. Inter alia contending that between 1st April 2000 to 20th April, 2000, the shops in question were run by the Excise Department, and therefore, petitioner was entitled to proportionate adjustment of the licence fees for this period of twenty days, petitioner filed a application before the Excise Commissioner seeking adjustment of the aforesaid amount on the ground that the petitioner was prevented from running the shops during the aforesaid period. The Excise Commissioner rejected this application and the prayer of the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 dated 20th March, 2001. The Excise Commissioner rejected this application and the prayer of the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 dated 20th March, 2001. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner field a appeal before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 03rd July, 2002 and it appears that certain review applications filed were also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner has filed this petition challenging rejection of the prayer made by the petitioner for granting adjustment in the payment of licence fees for the aforesaid period of twenty days, i.e., from 1st April, 2000 to 20th April, 2000, on the ground that the petitioner was permitted to run the shops only from 21 st April, 2000. ( 3. ) Mr.Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.N.Seth, learned counsel taking me through the provisions of clause 12, 13 and 17 of the Excise policy for the period in question submitted that under these provisions power is vested with the authorities to conduct re-auction in case a person is willing to offer a bid 10% more than the highest bid received in the auction conducted and is also willing to deposit one-third of the amount by Bank draft or Bankers cheque. According to the petitioner, on 29th March, 2000 vide Annexure P/3 they had given a offer in accordance with the provisions of clause 12 and 13 of the policy in question and along with his application deposited a sum of Rs.2.00 crore as earnest money and undertook that this amount can be forfeited in the event of the petitioner not making a bid in the re-auction for a amount less than Rs. 10,89,00,111/-. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that once a application submitted in accordance with clauses 12, 13 and 17 of the policy for re-auction is accepted by the competent authority, i.e., the Excise Commissioner, the entire process of auction as per the original conditions of auction is done and in the process licence granted is for the period for which the original auction is conducted. In the present case, the period is from 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. According to the petitioner, the offer of the petitioner submitted vide Annexure P/3 was clear and unambiguous, it was to the extent that if re-auction is ordered, petitioner is willing to make a minimum bid of Rs. In the present case, the period is from 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. According to the petitioner, the offer of the petitioner submitted vide Annexure P/3 was clear and unambiguous, it was to the extent that if re-auction is ordered, petitioner is willing to make a minimum bid of Rs. 10,89,00, 111/- which is 10% more than the original bid submitted by Shivam Enterprises in the auction conducted on 23rd March, 2000 and thereafter when the auction proceedings took place and the bid had crossed this minimum amount and the performance of the undertaking given by the petitioner vide Annexure P/3 was fulfilled. It is stated by the petitioner that when the re-auction took place on 10th April, 2000, the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings and thereafter the highest bid for an amount of Rs. 12,82,05,101/- was finalised which is 33% over and above the earlier bid of Rs. 9,90, 00, 101/-. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the bid submitted, the shops were handed over only from 21 st April, 2000 and he was permitted to run the shops from 21 st April, 2000 and for the period 1 st April, 2000 to 20th April, 2000, the Excise department was running the shops. It is argued that due to this reason, petitioner was entitled to remission of licence fees for the aforesaid period of 20 days. Case of the petitioner is that the undertaking given by the petitioner vide Annexure P/3 and the words used by him therein in Hindi i.e., : ...SHESH AWADHI KE LIYA UKT BHOLI DENE KO THAYAR HOON" is misconstrued by the respondents to mean the remaining period of the year 2000-01 after re-auction whereas the intention of the petitioner was that he was willing to take the shops for the remaining period at a amount of Rs. 10,89,00,111/- nothing more nor nothing less. It was submitted by Mr. Arya, learned senior counsel that once the bid crossed this amount, the commitment made by the petitioner in Annexure P/3 lost its significance and the petitioner could not be saddled with the liability to pay the licence fees for the entire year, i.e., 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. It is stated that the licence fees is fixed through the excise auction for the entire year. It is stated that the licence fees is fixed through the excise auction for the entire year. The licence fees fixed is for the complete year and fees payable for the complete year cannot be permitted to be recovered if the shop is handed over on a subsequent date and the period for which the shop is permitted to be run is less than 12 months period for which the licence is granted. It was argued by the learned senior counsel that as a matter of settled law and practice it is always understood that in the tender notice issued for grant of licence to deal with foreign liquor and country liquor, the reserved price shall be the licence fees which is corresponding to the year for which the auction is held and when the auction is for a lesser period, the reserved price is reduced correspondingly and remission is granted. By filing various documents and inviting my attention to certain documents filed as Annexure A/1 and A/2 at page 159, 160 and 162 of the paper book for the year 2004- 05, it is pointed out that the reserved price was fixed at Rs. 68,75,000/- initially and the auction was for the period 03-8-2004 to 31-3-2005 and 17-8-2004 to 31-3-2005 respectively and proportionately reduction was granted. It is stated that in the present case, re-auction was held on 10th April, 2000. The initial auction on 23rd March, 2000 was for the complete year and when shops were handed over to the petitioner only on 21st April, 2000, petitioner is entitled for remission of 20 days in licence fees. It is argued that in a unreasonably and in a arbitrary manner, the respondents have refused remission in the licence fees which amounts to denying equity to the petitioner before the law and equal protection of the law and violates the right guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 (g) of the Constitution. It was emphasised that as the shops were run by the Excise Department from 1st April, 2000 to 20th April, 2000, petitioner is entitled to remission in the licence fees. It was emphasised that as the shops were run by the Excise Department from 1st April, 2000 to 20th April, 2000, petitioner is entitled to remission in the licence fees. Placing reliance on a judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue dated 11th August, 2000 in the case of Surendra Kmai Rai, Datia filed as Annexure P/6 and a judgment rendered by a single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 1191/2001 (M/s Yogesh Kumar, A Registered Firm vs. State of M.P., and others) decided on 24th August, 2006 vide Annexure P/17, learned senior counsel argued that in these cases also remission for the period when the shop was run by the Excise department was granted but similar benefit is being denied to the petitioner. Taking me through certain communications and circulars issued by the State Government as contained in Annexure P/7 and Annexure P/8, learned senior counsel tried to emphasise that the department has recognised the principle and policy for granting proportionate reduction in the licence fees when the auction is held in the middle of the year other than the year normally specified as the excise year. ( 4. ) During the course of hearing, it was emphasised by learned senior counsel that the documents and offer/undertaking given by the petitioner on 29th March, 2000 vide Annexure P/3 has been read in isolation, in a manner which is favourable to the department and detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. It was emphasised by him that the words: SHESH AWADHIKE LIYA indicated in the said letter by the petitioner is misconceived and a different meaning is being attributed to the said words to deny the benefit to the petitioner. It was argued that the construction of a document and reading of the document has to be done in such a manner that the document is understood in its correct spirit which is in furtherance to the intention expressed in the document and to given effect to it in its totality. It was argued that the construction of a document and reading of the document has to be done in such a manner that the document is understood in its correct spirit which is in furtherance to the intention expressed in the document and to given effect to it in its totality. In this regard, learned senior counsel invites my attention to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the following cases: (a) Ramkishorelal and another vs. Kamalnaryan, AIR 1963 SC 890 (para 12); (b) Keshav Kumar Swamp vs. Flowmore Private Limited, (1994) 2 SCC 10 (paras 1,2,3,4 and 5); (c) Narmadaben Maganlal Thakker vs. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker and others, (1997) 2 SCC 255 (para 3) (d) F.M.Devaru Ganapathi Bhat vs. Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat, (2004) 2 SCC 504 (para 8); it was emphasised on behalf of the petitioner that the offer and commitment made by the petitioner in his letter, Annexure P/3 dated 29th March, 2000 was limited to the extent of 10% more than the highest bid received in the previous auction, meaning thereby that the auction continues beyond this limit, the commitment made in the letter has to be read in the context of requirement of law, i.e., paying licence fees only to the extent and for the period for which the licence is granted and the contractor is permitted to run the shops. Accordingly, it was argued by the learned senior counsel that the respondents have acted in a arbitrary manner and for no fault of the petitioner, licence fees for the entire year is being recovered even though the petitioner was permitted to run the shop for a period less by twenty days for which he was entitled to proportionate remission in the licence fees as per the rules and circulars and policy of the State government, accordingly, the contention of the petitioner is that by picking up few words in the letter, Annexure P/3 submitted by the petitioner, respondents are trying to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner, this amounts to arbitrary exercise of powers by the respondents which warrants interference in these proceedings. ( 5. ) Refuting the aforesaid contention, it was argued by Mr. Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State that the contention of the petitioner is nothing but a after-thought. It was emphasised by Mr. ( 5. ) Refuting the aforesaid contention, it was argued by Mr. Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State that the contention of the petitioner is nothing but a after-thought. It was emphasised by Mr. Newaskar that petitioner had submitted a offer vide Annexure P/3 and the request made by him in this offer was to conduct re-auctioning of the shops in question as per the policy and terms and conditions of the tender, he was willing to participate in the re-auction by bidding at a price 10% more than the maximum offer in the last bid and the bid submitted by him was for the remaining period of the year 2000-01. Mr. Newaskar pointed out that this offer of the petitioner was accepted and in the order passed by the Excise Commissioner vide Annexure R/l on 31st March, 2000, a direction was issued for conducting re-auction for the remaining period of 2000-01 and in the auction notice, Annexure P/4 it was clearly stated that the auction being conducted on 10th April, 2000 was for the remaining period of 2000-01 and the licence was granted to the petitioner vide Annexure R/2 specifying the period of the contract from 21st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001 and consideration of the auction was Rs. 12,82,05,101/-. It was argued by Mr. Newaskar that once the licence is for a specific period and the amount is specified in the licence, petitioner is permitted to run the shops for the entire period indicated in, the licence, the contention of the petitioner for claiming remission is unreasonable and in rejecting the claim of the petitioner, learned counsel argues that the State Government has not committed any error warranting interference in this petition. Accordingly, learned counsel for the State Government prays for dismissal of this petition. It is stated that the entire amount as per the stipulation made in the licence, Annexure R/2 is not deposited by the petitioner and more than Rs. 70.00 lacs (Rupees seventy lacs only) is yet to be recoverable from the petitioner and the process of recovery is stayed because of the interim order passed by this Court. ( 6. ) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 7. 70.00 lacs (Rupees seventy lacs only) is yet to be recoverable from the petitioner and the process of recovery is stayed because of the interim order passed by this Court. ( 6. ) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 7. ) Even though, clauses 12, 13 and 13 of the excise policy, Annexure P/11 contemplates a procedure for granting re-auction but from a perusal of the judgment rendered in LPA No. 99/2000 (supra) it is seen that when initially auction was held on 23rd March, 2000 petitioner did not participate in the auction process and did not offer any bid. It is held by the Division Bench that the provision for re-auctioning as contemplated under clauses 12 and 13 is only available to such of the persons who have participated in the initial auction. It is indicated in paragraph 3 of the judgment by the learned Division Bench that in this case power has been exercised by the Excise Commissioner under clause 17 which permits the Excise Commissioner to cancel a auction if he is of the opinion that on re-auctioning more revenue can be earned. It has been held by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case that both the clauses 12, 13 and 17 operate on different considerations. It is seen that under clause 12 and 13, the Collector has jurisdiction to re-auction by cancelling the earlier auction and the Excise Commissioner has no role to play but under clause 17, the Excise Commissioner can order for re-auction in the interest of Government revenue and under this clause, the Collector has no role to play. It is held that for exercise of the powers under clause 17, compliance of the mandatory requirements of clause 12 is not necessary It seems that in the earlier litigation that was held at the instance of Shivam Enterprises, a objection was raised to the effect that the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the re-auction as mandatory requirement of clause 12 and 13 are not fulfilled, i.e., petitioner has not participated in the first auction and rejecting this objection of Shivam Enterprises, it is held by the Division Bench that the Commissioner has exercised the power under clause 17, and therefore, appeal of Shivam Enterprises was dismissed. Clause 17 of the auction conditions and policy reads as under: "The Excise Commissioner can order re-auction of any shop or group of shops in the interest of Government revenue even though the bid was finally sanctioned by the Collector or by the Excise Commissioner under condition No. 6." ( 8. ) This clause is interpreted by the Division Bench in LPA No. 99/2000 (supra) to mean that the power is given to the Excise Commissioner to direct re-auction in the interest of Government revenue. In the present case, the petitioner submitted the letter on 29th March, 2000 and prayed for re-auction by making a undertaking that he is willing to bid at a minimum amount of Rs. 10,89,00,111/- which is 10% more than the bid submitted by Shivam Enterprises in the earlier auction conducted on 23rd March, 2000. In the last para of this letter, petitioner submitted that if the re-auction is held in the month of April then he is willing to offer the aforesaid minimum bid for the remaining period of the year 2000-2001. The question is as to whether the contention of the petitioner that the bid for Rs. 10,89,00,111/- submitted by him has to be read as a offer for the remaining period subject to the condition that for any higher amount, the offer is not made by him. As a bare proposition, this argument of the learned senior counsel seems to be attractive but on a close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case and intention of the parties it has to be rejected. ( 9. ) Petitioner is a excise contractor and is supposed to know the rules, procedures and policies which are applicable in the matter of auction, re-auction and purchase of liquor shops. Petitioner knows very well that the re- auction can be claimed by him only if he is able to give a proposal which is better than the one received by the State Government and accordingly, he submitted a proposal at a rate 10% higher than the earlier bid amount received in the auction. When letter, Annexure P/3 was submitted by the petitioner, the offer made by him as Rs. When letter, Annexure P/3 was submitted by the petitioner, the offer made by him as Rs. 10,89,00,111/- cannot be construed to be a bid made by him for the remaining period of the year 2000-01, in fact, it was a request made for re-auctioning and the undertaking given is that the minimum bid which was to be submitted by him will be 10% more than the previous bid received in case re-auction is ordered. Petitioner very well knew that Annexure P/3 is not a offer submitted by him but is a application submitted seeking re-auction and if the application is accepted and re-auction commences, the amount of the offer may go up and would not remain the one offered by him in the said letter. Contention advanced by Mr. Robit Arya, learned senior counsel could have been accepted if Annexure P/3 was a bid submitted by the petitioner, that is not so, in fact, the letter Annexure P/3 on 29th March, 2000 submitted by the petitioner is a application praying for re-auction under certain condition and the condition is that if the re-auction is held, petitioner is willing to offer a bid of at least Rs. 10,89,00,111/- which is 10% more than the previous bid received. Petitioner also agreed to accept the offer if the re-auction is ordered for the remaining period of the year. When this letter was submitted, the Excise Commissioner considered it and a perusal of the order passed by the Excise Commissioner as contained in Annexure R/l on 31st March, 2000 indicates that the Excise Commissioner took note of the offer made by the petitioner and it was emphasised by him that if the re-auction is conducted, the State Government is expected to earn revenue of at least Rs. 99,11,010/-. The Excise Commissioner was alive to the situation that the prayer made by the petitioner is for seeking re-auction for the remaining period of the year 2000-2001, that being so, when the application of the petitioner was accepted and when the direction was given for re-auctioning, the Excise Commissioner gave four directions which are contained in paragraph 5 of the letter, Annexure R/l dated 31 st March, 2000. Direction No. 2 in this regard is only relevant for the present. Direction No. 2 in this regard is only relevant for the present. The direction contained in paragraph 5(2) is that for re-auctioning, 05 days time be granted which should be done on or before 10th April, 2,000 by the Collector, Ujjain by issuing necessary notification as per rules and the applicant will appear and participate in the auction for the remaining period of 2000-2001 and a minimum offer of Rs. 10,89,11,000/- shall be submitted by him. It is therefore, clear from this order that the direction given was to conduct re-auction for the remaining period of the year 2000-2001, and therefore, in pursuance to this letter/order, Annexure R/l dated 31st March, 2000, the Collector, Ujjain issued the notification, Annexure P/4 and the period for which the auction is being conducted is specifically indicated to be for the remaining period of the year 2000-2001 in Hindi the same reads as: PURANA NILAMI VARSH 2000-2001 KE SESHA AWADHI KE LIYE. Accordingly, auction was conducted and licence, Annexure R/2 was issued to the petitioner and in the licence also, the period for which the licence is granted is indicated as 21st April 2000 to 31st March, 2001 and the consideration of the auction amount is indicated as Rs. 12,82,05,101/-. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the intention of all concerned right from the period application was submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P/3 on 29th March, 2000 up to the date of issuance of licence, Annexure R/2 on 21st April, 2000 was mat the re-auction is being claimed for the remaining period of the year 2000-01. ( 10. ) The words, "for the remaining period of the year 2000-2001" indicated in the application submitted by the petitioner, the order passed by the authorities concerned, and in the auction notice has a particular significance. ( 10. ) The words, "for the remaining period of the year 2000-2001" indicated in the application submitted by the petitioner, the order passed by the authorities concerned, and in the auction notice has a particular significance. Normally, auctions are held for a particular year and in the present case for the year 2000-2001, means from 01st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001 and when the words used are for the remaining period of the year 2000-2001, it means that all the parties are alive to the situation that if re-auction is held, it would be possible only after the year 2000-2001 has commenced, i.e., after 1st April, 2000, a date subsequent thereto, and therefore, all had agreed to conduct the re-auction for the remaining period which does not mean the complete year of 2000-2001, i.e., from 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. Petitioner being a liquor contractor is also supposed to have understood the implications of the words "remaining period of 2000-2001" in this sense only, that being so, I am unable to accept the proposition put forth by the learned senior counsel with regard to importing a wrong meaning to the words "2000-2001 KE SHESH AWADHI KE LIYA" indicated by the petitioner in his application dated 29th March, 2000 vide Annexure P/3. Learned senior counsel is right in saying that a document has to be read completely and in the present case also, if the document, Annexure P/3 is read in its totality and understood in the context of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the only meaning and import of the offer made by the petitioner would be the one which has been accepted and understood by the State Government and the action taken thereof and nothing otherwise. ( 11. ) There is another way of considering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. ( 12. ) Grant of licence and the manner of establishing and running the liquor shops is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act and the statutory rules framed thereunder. Section 17 and 28 of the Act deals with the provision of granting licence and the licence granted to the petitioner vide Annexure R/2 is as per the aforesaid statutory rules and in the statutory form. Section 17 and 28 of the Act deals with the provision of granting licence and the licence granted to the petitioner vide Annexure R/2 is as per the aforesaid statutory rules and in the statutory form. Case of the petitioner is that when a contractor is granted a licence and is prevented from running the shop for a particular period for no fault of his, he is entitled to a proportionate remission in the licence fees. This contention of the petitioner could be accepted if the petitioner was prevented from running the shop for the period stipulated in the licence, Annexure R/2. In the present case, the period stipulated in the statutory licence is from 21 st April, 2000 to 31 st March, 2001 and the amount of consideration of auction is Rs. 12,82,05,101/-. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was prevented from running the shop for the period indicated in the licence, i.e., 21 st April, 2000 to 31 st March, 2001 when the petitioner is permitted to run the shops for the entire period as indicated in the licence and what is being recovered from the petitioner is only the amount indicated in the licence issued to the petitioner. It is not known as to how the petitioner can claim remission on the ground that he is prevented from running the shops for the period for which it was not granted licence, the licence is granted from 21st April, 2000 and the petitioner is granted permission to run the shops with effect from 21st April, 2000, that being so, the contention of the petitioner has to be rejected. ( 13. ) During the course of haring learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue vide Annexure P/6 in the case of Surendra Kumar Rai (supra) and the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 11191/01 (supra). A perusal of the orders passed in the aforesaid cases indicate that in both these cases, the contractor concerned was not permitted to run the shops for the period for which the licence was granted. As the total period for which actually functioning of the shops was less than the period granted by the licence proportionate remission was permitted and it is in that context that the cases have been decided. As the total period for which actually functioning of the shops was less than the period granted by the licence proportionate remission was permitted and it is in that context that the cases have been decided. The said cases will not help the petitioner for the simple reason that the terms and conditions in the statutory licence, Annexure R/2 are binding the petitioner and he was permitted to run the shops from 21st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. Once it is established that the petitioner was permitted to run the shops for the period indicated in the licence, petitioner is statutorily obliged to pay licence fees indicated in the licence, that being so, petitioner is not entitled for remission contrary to the terms and conditions of the statutory licence. ( 14. ) Similar is the position with regard to the cases relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner rendered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of M/s. Sun Bight Marketing Pvt., Ltd., Raiprr vs. The Commissioner (Excise), Gwalior (MP) and others, 2001 Vol. 2 MPHT 57 (CG). In this case, the contractor concerned was compelled to close the shops on account of election in Durg and Bhilai, as such, the contractor concerned was prevented from running the shops for the period in question as per the licence and was granted the proportionate remission for the period when the shops could not function. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was prevented from running the shops on any day or any period as indicated in the licence, on the contrary the petitioner having run the shops for the entire period for which licence was granted cannot claim remission. ( 15. ) During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner had made much stress with regard to the circular issued and the remission granted vide Annexure A/1 and Annexure A/2. As far as the circulars are concerned, all the circulars speak of remission in case the contractor is not able to run the shops for the period for which the licence is granted to him. In the present case as the licence itself was granted from 21 st April, 2000 to 31 st March, 2001 and therefore, when the petitioner had run the shops during this period, the circulars would not help the petitioner. In the present case as the licence itself was granted from 21 st April, 2000 to 31 st March, 2001 and therefore, when the petitioner had run the shops during this period, the circulars would not help the petitioner. As far as the orders, Annexure A/1, and Annexure A/2 are concerned, these documents are pertaining to certain shops for the year 2004-05 and from these documents it cannot be held that the petitioner is entitled to remission as these documents are only notices of auction and not orders granting remission as contended by the petitioner. ( 16. ) Accordingly, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances that have come on record and for the reasons as indicated hereinabove, I see no reason to accept the contention raised by the petitioner, the action of the State Government being in accordance with the terms and conditions of the statutory licence granted in favour of the petitioner, the same is not arbitrary or illegal warranting interference in this petition. ( 17. ) Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference, petition stands dismissed without any order so as to cost. Petition dismissed.