Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 461 (JHR)

Rahul Gupta v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-06-07

POONAM SRIVASTAV

body2011
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel on behalf of the State. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed and after hearing the respective counsel at length, the writ petition is being finally decided. 3. Prayer in the instant writ petition is for quashing the order dated 17.03.2011 passed in Memo No. 737 by Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Dhanbad, demanding the petitioner, who is the proprietor of Guru Monark Restaurant-cum Bar, Rs. 5 lacs (Rupees five lacs) as Annual Licence fee for the financial year 2011-12 under Rule 107(i) of the Excise Rules (Amended by the Government of Jharkhand). 4. The second prayer is for a direction in the nature of mandamus to Respondent No. 5 to accept Rs. 2 lacs (Rupees two lacs) as the licence fee from the petitioner for the year 2011-12 as it used to do in the previous year. 5.The petitioner was issued a licence to run the Restaurant & Bar in accordance with Rules, vide Licence No. 22/2008-09 and 23/2008-09. The claim of the petitioner is that he had been depositing Rs. 2 lacs per year as licence fee, but suddenly for the current financial year a demand of Rs. 5 lacs was made. The petitioner has deposited the aforesaid amount under protest. The petitioner relies on the Rule 107(i) of the Rules mentioned aforesaid. 6. The submission is that his Restaurant & Bar is covered at the details mentioned at Serial No. VI . Since his Restaurant & Bar is situated in rural area and, therefore, he is liable to deposit only Rs. 2 lacs per year. The demand of Rs. 5 lacs as detailed at Serial No. III is only for Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Dhanbad, Bokaro and Hazaribagh at the rate of Rs. 5 lacs. Petitioner's Restaurant & Bar is situated in rural area therefore the demand of Rs. 5 lacs as licence fee is illegal and liable to be quashed. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Emphasis has been made at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit. 8. The submission is that Digwadih is a place situated in the area of Jorapokhar Police Station in the district of Dhanbad and now this Police Station has been included within the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, vide Gazette Notification No. 04 dated 08.03.2010 which defines the area of different electoral ward of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation. The demand of Rs. 8. The submission is that Digwadih is a place situated in the area of Jorapokhar Police Station in the district of Dhanbad and now this Police Station has been included within the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, vide Gazette Notification No. 04 dated 08.03.2010 which defines the area of different electoral ward of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation. The demand of Rs. 5 lacs has been made since the area has been included by Municipal Corporation in the Municipal limit and the word 'City' denotes the Municipal area. 9. Learned counsel has tried to lay emphasis on the fact that the Municipal area will not mean and include the situation of his Restaurant & Bar within the city area and, therefore, the demand is illegal. 10. After hearing counsel for both the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that evidently the Rules have not been challenged. Rule 107(i) is prevalent since 31.07.2004. No doubt, the petitioner was depositing Rs. 2 lacs previously, but after the Gazette Notification of 2010, the demand of Rs. 5 lacs is absolutely legal and does not call for any interference or exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The submission to the effect that the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Dhanbad has no jurisdiction to enhance the licence fee is devoid of substance since the licence fee has not been enhanced. The demand is made according to the prescribed Rules which was always Rs. 5 lacs for the city area in which the Restaurant & Bar is situated and included within the Municipal limit. The demand has been made only in consonance with the Gazette Notification and I am not inclined to alter the licence fee on the basis of the aforesaid submission. 12. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.