Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1341 (GAU)

Pranab Kumar Saha v. State of Tripura

2012-12-17

SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT Swapan Chandra Das, J. 1. This Civil first appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2001 and 02.06.2001 respectively, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No. 25 of 1999. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik assisted by learned counsel, Mr. R. Dutta for the appellant and learned Additional G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondents. 2. The appellant as plaintiff instituted the suit praying for a decree of Rs.7,98,627/- against the defendant-respondents alleging inter alia, that the plaintiff was the sole proprietor of a Bonded Warehouse for India Made Foreign Liquor (for short IMFL) and Beer etc., in the name and style of his Warehouse as "Tripureswari Bonded Warehouse" situated at Jagannathbari road, Krishnanagar. He was initially granted a license by the defendant No. 2 for 1(one) month 15(fifteen) days w.e.f. 14.02.1991 to 31.03.1991. His license was time to time renewed upto to 31st March, 1995. Before expiry of the period of license, the plaintiff applied for renewal of his license for the year 1995-96 but the defendants rejected the prayer by Memo dated 31.03.1995. Challenging such renewal, plaintiff filed a Writ case vide Civil Rule No. 487 of 1995 before this court but it was withdrawn on 25.06.1996 on technical ground. 2.1 The defendant No. 2 by a Memo dated 10.04.1995 asked the plaintiff to sell the stocks of IMFL products and Beer which were lying unsold in his stock on 31st March, 1995 to other license holder Warehouses. On receipt of that letter, the plaintiff by his letter dated 24.05.1995 informed defendant No. 2 that no license holder Warehouses were ready to purchase his stock and therefore, requested defendant No. 2 for issuing necessary permission for selling the unsold stock to the retailers. On receipt of that letter dated 24.05.1995 the defendant No. 3 informed the plaintiff vide Memo dated 17.07.1995 to dispose the stock as per Memo dated 10.04.1995 issued by defendant No.2. Plaintiff thereafter submitted representation to defendant No. 3 by his letter dated 24.7.1995 narrating his difficulties and requested the defendants to renew his license for the purpose of selling the unsold stock but received no response. Plaintiff thereafter submitted representation to defendant No. 3 by his letter dated 24.7.1995 narrating his difficulties and requested the defendants to renew his license for the purpose of selling the unsold stock but received no response. He further wrote letter dated 09.09.1995 and 16.07.1996 requesting the defendants to consider his representation and to issue permits in the name of retail dealers and to the wholesale Bonded Warehouses so that the unsold stock could be disposed of without delay. 2.2. On 05.08.1996 defendant No. 3 by a letter directed the plaintiff to sell the unsold stock of IMFL and Beer etc. in conformity with Rule 153 of the Tripura Excise Rules, 1990 (hereinafter mentioned as Rules) to license holder Bonded Warehouses and to dispose the stock within 20 (twenty) days, otherwise, action would be taken as per the provisions prescribed in Rule 95 of the Rules. The plaintiff requested defendant No. 3 by his letter dated 12.08.1996 to permit him to dispose the unsold stock of IMFL and Beer to "M/S Tripura Bonded Warehouse" Agartala, who agreed to purchase the same and expressed his willingness also by writing letter dated 09.12.1996 and 30.01.1997 to the defendants. The defendants by letter dated 14.10.1996 asked the plaintiff to remove the IMFL and Beer from the stock on payment of full excise duly amounting to Rs.8,68,049/- within 10 days. "M/S Tripura Bonded Warehouse" agreed to take the stock subject to condition that it should be kept in the godown of the plaintiff for which said Warehouse shall pay the godown rent to the plaintiff. The defendants did not agree to the proposal and therefore, the unsold stock could not be disposed of to "M/S Tripura Bonded Warehouse". It is also stated by the plaintiff that the demand of advance payment of excise duty of Rs.8,68,049/- was illegal since the holder of the Warehouse was not legally responsible to make payment of excise duty which is payable by retail vendors. The plaintiff, therefore, by letter dated 24.10.1996 informed defendant No. 2 that he should be allowed to dispose the entire stock as per proviso to Rule 153 of the Excise Rules but, received no response. 2.3 According to the provisions the unsold stocks were kept in the godown of the plaintiff under double lock system of which one key was with the plaintiff and the other was with the Inspector of Excise of the defendants. 2.3 According to the provisions the unsold stocks were kept in the godown of the plaintiff under double lock system of which one key was with the plaintiff and the other was with the Inspector of Excise of the defendants. The plaintiff by his letter dated 23.12.1996 informed defendant No. 2 narrating all the facts and difficulties he was facing and requested the defendant No. 2 as well as the Commissioner of Excise by sending a copy of the same, to allow him to dispose of the stocks as per Clause 153(1) and 153(2) of the Excise Rules within 7 days and otherwise, he will be compelled to take shelter of law. 2.4 Since all approach of the plaintiff foiled to dispose the unsold stock of IMFL and Beer and it was lying in his godown under double lock, he again filed a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 47 of 97) before this court praying for a direction upon the defendants for disposal of the stocks and this court by order dated 05.05.1997 directed to dispose the stock to the existing licensees of the Bonded Warehouses and if the same is not acceptable to them, the same should be disposed of by the defendants according to Rules. To comply with the order of this court, the defendant No. 3 deputed one Sub-inspector of Excise vide letter dated 02.05.1997 to verify and assess the unsold stocks. Accordingly, a list of unsold stock was prepared by the said Officer and the plaintiff also vide his letter dated 12.05.1997 requested the defendant No. 2 to dispose the unsold stocks as per direction of this court. Accordingly, the defendant No. 2 vide his letter dated 15.05.1997 issued notice to all the Existing license holder Bonded Warehouses of Tripura to intimate within 15 days whether they were agreeable to take over the unsold stock of the plaintiff as per the attached list from the godown of the plaintiff. But none of the license holder Bonded Warehouses came forward to take over the unsold stocks from the godown of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also tried to pursue the existing license holder Bonded Warehouses and requested the defendants by writing letter dated 18.06.1997 and 23.07.1997 to arrange disposal of unsold stocks as per order of this court dated 05.05.1997. But none of the license holder Bonded Warehouses came forward to take over the unsold stocks from the godown of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also tried to pursue the existing license holder Bonded Warehouses and requested the defendants by writing letter dated 18.06.1997 and 23.07.1997 to arrange disposal of unsold stocks as per order of this court dated 05.05.1997. In the meantime, the defendants arranged for examination of the sample of unsold MFL and Beer by Public Analyst from the stock of the plaintiff. Till 31st July, 1997, the plaintiff did not get any response from the defendants. On 01.08.1997 defendant No. 2 intimated the plaintiff that as per report of the Public Analyst, percentage of ethyl alcohol of 28 brands of IMFL and Beer were found much less than the strength required and directed the plaintiff to make arrangement for destruction of his entire stock. On receipt of that letter, the plaintiff by his letter dated 05.08.1997 informed defendant No. 2 that the defendant was solely responsible for destruction of the unsold stock due to dilatory tactics, negligence and inactions. In view of that letter dated 01.08.1997 of defendant No. 2 the unsold stock of IMFL and Beer was destroyed in presence of the Senior Inspector of Excise (Sankar Ch. Dey) deputed by the defendants. The following stocks were destroyed:- (i) On 8.8.97 11,556 bottles of diff. brands Containing 2864.192 LPL (ii) On 16.8.97 16,609 bottles of diff. brands 3174.249 LPL (iii) On 11.11.97 1,599 bottles of diff. brands 238.541 LPL Total 29,764 bottles of diff. brands 6276.982 LPL 2.5. In support of the destruction of the stock, the Officer-in-charge i.e. the Inspector of Excise deputed by the defendants issued certificates dated 08.08.1997, 16.08.1997 and 11.11.1997 and copies of the same were also given to defendant No. 2. Because of the destruction of IMFL and Beer the plaintiff suffered a loss amounting to Rs.3,12,604/- and the amount is based on the sale price of the goods destructed as per the rates fixed by the defendants. The plaintiff was bound to unnecessarily keep the stock from 01.04.1995 to 11.11.1997 i.e. from the date of expiry of license till the date of disposal of entire stock on 11.11.1997 @ Rs.10,000/- per month and the plaintiff therefore prayed that he is entitled to get Rs.3,15,000/- towards rent of the godown. The plaintiff was bound to unnecessarily keep the stock from 01.04.1995 to 11.11.1997 i.e. from the date of expiry of license till the date of disposal of entire stock on 11.11.1997 @ Rs.10,000/- per month and the plaintiff therefore prayed that he is entitled to get Rs.3,15,000/- towards rent of the godown. The plaintiff further stated that for destruction of the stock it had to be shifted from the godown and for loading, unloading and carrying cost, the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.3000/-. Plaintiff also claimed interest @ 15% per annum over Rs.3,12,604/- (cost of destructed IMFL and Beer) and on that account claimed an amount of Rs.1,68,023/-. In total the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.7,98,627/- and prayed for decree. The plaintiff enclosed the detail calculations in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff issued notice under Section 80(1) of CPC but received no response. He, therefore, prayed for the decree along with the cost of the suit. 3. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement inter alia, stating that the suit was not maintainable and that it was barred by the law of limitation as prescribed in the provisions of the Excise Act and Rules framed there under. It is further contended by the defendants that the Govt. of Tripura decided to distribute the license of the Bonded Warehouses throughout the State inviting tenders and such tender was invited before expiry of the license of the plaintiff. The decision of the govt. was challenged by the plaintiff and others filing writ petition before the High Court but that did not succeed and the plaintiff also participated in the tender process but remained unsuccessful. The stock which was lying with the plaintiff was supposed to be disposed of as per the provision prescribed in Rule 153 of the Rules and the plaintiff was asked by the defendants by their letter dated 10.04.1995 to dispose the stock as per Rules but the plaintiff failed to do so and on the contrary, asked the defendants to issue permits to the retailers for disposal of his stock which was not permissible as per law. It is also contended by the defendants that the approach of Tripura Bonded Warehouse which agreed to take the stock could not be permitted as there is no provision in law to maintain 2(two) godowns by a license holder. It is also contended by the defendants that the approach of Tripura Bonded Warehouse which agreed to take the stock could not be permitted as there is no provision in law to maintain 2(two) godowns by a license holder. The defendants have no negligence in the matter of disposal of the stock of the plaintiff and the defendants asked the plaintiff to remove the stock from his godown on payment of the excise duty amounting to Rs.8,68,049/- within 10 days but the plaintiff did not comply the order. Thereafter, the samples from the stock were examined by the Public Analyst who reported that the strength of the liquor deteriorated and therefore as per Rules the unsold stock of the plaintiff was destroyed in presence of the plaintiff and the authorized officer of the defendants. The defendants had no negligence in the matter of disposal of the stock of the plaintiff and therefore, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost. 4. Considering the pleadings of the parties, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) framed the following issues:- (A) Is the suit maintainable and is the suit barred by limitation? (B) Is the plaintiff entitled to an amount of Rs.3,12,604/- from the defendants as compensation towards cost of Foreign Liquor? (C) Is the plaintiff entitled to an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- from the defendants as Godown rent? (D) Is the plaintiff entitled to get interest, as prayed for, in this suit, if so, what shall be the rate of interest? (E) Is the plaintiff entitled to get decree, as prayed for? (F) What other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled in this suit? 5. In course of trial plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the plaintiff also proved 32 items of documents and those have been marked as Exhibits. Learned trial Judge listed those exhibited documents in Para 5 of the judgment and for brevity, I do not like to reproduce here the list of those documents. On behalf of the defendants, one D.W. namely Sri Asim Saha, a Senior Inspector of Excise has been examined. 6. Learned trial Judge decided all the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. 7. It is contended by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. On behalf of the defendants, one D.W. namely Sri Asim Saha, a Senior Inspector of Excise has been examined. 6. Learned trial Judge decided all the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. 7. It is contended by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that the court below wrongly considered the provisions of Section 92 and 93 of the Tripura Excise Act (herein-after mentioned as Act) and Rule 153 of the Rules and arrived at a wrong and perverse findings. He has contended that the power of the Civil Court cannot be ousted by imposing a bar in respect of any loss or damage caused to a citizen. According to learned counsel, the provision as contained in Section 92 and 93 relates to excise revenue and not in respect of the damages incurred by a person for the fault of the respondents. The trial Court foiled to appreciate the legislative intention of those provisions and arrived at a wrong finding. It is amply proved that the plaintiff-appellant has suffered the damage because of the lapses and negligence on behalf of the defendant-respondents and so the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to get the decree as prayed for. 8. Learned Additional G.A., Mr. Chakraborty, on the other hand, has submitted that the defendant-respondents acted according to the provisions prescribed by law. The defendant-respondents cannot go beyond the provisions prescribed and therefore, they cannot be held responsible for payment of the damages claimed by the plaintiff. Defendant respondents asked the plaintiff-appellant to dispose the stock as per the provisions prescribed in Rule 153 but the plaintiff appellant failed to do so. Again the plaintiff-appellant was asked to remove the stock to the Tripura Bonded Warehouse within 10 days after payment of the excise duty of the stock but the plaintiff failed to do so and the responsibility of failure should be borne by the plaintiff-appellant for which defendant-respondents cannot be held responsible. Learned Additional G.A. therefore supported the decree of dismissal. 9. Admittedly, the respondents issued a license in the name of the appellant to deal with IMFL and Beer etc. intoxicants, for a period initially from 14.02.1991 to 31.3.1991 and that license was renewed time to time. The plaintiff-appellant was continuously dealing with his business and the license expired on 31.03.1995. Learned Additional G.A. therefore supported the decree of dismissal. 9. Admittedly, the respondents issued a license in the name of the appellant to deal with IMFL and Beer etc. intoxicants, for a period initially from 14.02.1991 to 31.3.1991 and that license was renewed time to time. The plaintiff-appellant was continuously dealing with his business and the license expired on 31.03.1995. It is an undisputed fact that before expiry of the license, the plaintiff applied for renewal of the license for the year 1995-96. In the meantime, the defendant-respondents switched over to a new system of giving license for the Bonded Warehouse inviting tender there for and the plaintiff-appellant also participated in the tender but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff-appellant instituted a Writ case against the decision of the defendant-respondents but the Writ case was ultimately withdrawn. It is further also an undisputed fact that the plaintiff-appellant approached the defendant-respondents for disposal of unsold stocks lying in the godown to the retailers but such prayer was rejected by the defendants. His prayer for extension of license period for the disposal of stock was also refused. The defendant-respondents asked the plaintiff-appellant to dispose the stock as per the provisions prescribed in Rule 153 of the Rules. It is further an undisputed fact that the plaintiff-appellant proposed to dispose the stock to "M/S Tripura Bonded Warehouse", Agartala and requested the defendant-respondents to permit him accordingly and the said "M/S Tripura Bonded Warehouse", Agartala also intimated their willingness to the defendant-respondents on that aspect. The said "M/S Tripura Bonded Warehouse", Agartala had agreed to take the stock on condition that the stock should be kept in the godown of the plaintiff-appellant till the disposal of the stock and that the said Tripura Bonded Warehouse will bear the rent of the godown but the defendant-respondents did not agree to the proposal since a license holder Bonded Warehouse cannot maintain different Godowns at different places and the defendant-respondents asked the plaintiff appellant to dispose the stock and to shift the same within 10 days on payment of excise duty amounting to Rs.8,68,049/-. Since Tripura Bonded Warehouse did not agree to the proposal the plaintiff-appellant could not dispose the stock and approached the defendant-respondents to issue permit to the retail vendors for disposal of the stock but that was refused by the defendant-respondents saying that the existing law does not permit to do so. Since Tripura Bonded Warehouse did not agree to the proposal the plaintiff-appellant could not dispose the stock and approached the defendant-respondents to issue permit to the retail vendors for disposal of the stock but that was refused by the defendant-respondents saying that the existing law does not permit to do so. When the stock could not be disposed of, the plaintiff-appellant filed a Writ Petition vide Civil Rule No. 47 of 97 before this Court and by order dated 05.05.97 the Writ Petition was disposed of with the following direction:- The petitioner is, therefore, required to furnish the name of the Bonded Warehouse having licence to the Collector within a period of 7(seven) days and the Collector in his turn issue necessary pass for disposal of the remaining stock. In case, no existing wholesaler is agreeable to lift the remaining stock from the petitioner's Bonded Warehouse then Collector will pass appropriate order according to rules for disposal of the stock. With the above order and direction this writ petition is disposed of. It is also an undisputed fact that after above order was passed by this court, the defendant-respondents deputed a Sub-inspector of Excise and that Sub-inspector of Excise on 02.05.1997 verified and assessed the unsold stock and prepared a list thereof. The defendant-respondent No. 2 on 15.05.1997 issued notice to all the existing license holder Bonded Warehouses of Tripura to intimate within 15 days whether they were agreeable to purchase the unsold stocks of the plaintiff-appellant as per the list attached, but none of the Bonded Warehouses were agreed to take the stocks. In the meantime, the sample of the intoxicants from the godown of the plaintiff was tested by the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst opined that the percentage of ethyl alcohol deteriorated and therefore, directed the defendant respondents for destruction of the stock and accordingly, the unsold stock of IMFL and Beer of the plaintiff-appellant was destructed after preparing list in presence of the plaintiff appellant and the Officer-in-charge of the defendant respondents. It is further an undisputed fact that the Bonded Warehouses including that of the Bonded Warehouse of the plaintiff-appellant were/are kept in double lock system having keys with the license holder and the inspector of Excise and the same can be opened only in presence of both the person. It is further an undisputed fact that the Bonded Warehouses including that of the Bonded Warehouse of the plaintiff-appellant were/are kept in double lock system having keys with the license holder and the inspector of Excise and the same can be opened only in presence of both the person. The intoxicants to be sold to the retailers only under permit issued by the Excise authority and without such a permit no intoxicants can be sold to the retailers. The procedure what the authority has prescribed in the provisions of the Act and Rules has well been stated by D.W. 1 in his cross examination. For ready reference and appreciation, the statement of D.W. 1 in cross examination is reproduced here which reads thus:- Cross- Before September, 2000 nothing was known to me in connection with the subject-matter of the present suit. Now I cannot remember who have signed the written statement and verification thereof. It was a condition of the tender for bonded warehouse, that the owners of the existing warehouse, i.e., holder of the permit may participate the tender. The retailer apply for permit for purchasing liquor from the bonded warehouse of their choice and accordingly, Excise Department issue permit to the retailer for purchasing liquor from the Bonded Warehouse of their choice. In that case the Excise Duty of liquor is paid by the retailer at the time of issue of permit. After depositing the Excise Duty by the retailer in advance, permit is issued to them for purchasing liquor from the Bonded Warehouse of their choice. Without permit from the Excise Department the owner of owner bonded warehouse cannot sell liquor to the retailer. The Bonded Warehouse is always under the system of double lock having a key of lock with the Inspector of Excise, in charge of the Bonded warehouse and another with the owner of the bonded warehouse and the liquor is delivered from the warehouse as per permit in presence of the Inspector. In absence of the Excise Inspector, owner of the bonded Warehouse cannot open it and he has no right to do it. The Tripura Bonded Warehouse agreed to dispose of the stock of the plaintiff keeping the stock in the bonded warehouse (existing) of the plaintiff. W.V.--'it is not permissible in law'. In absence of the Excise Inspector, owner of the bonded Warehouse cannot open it and he has no right to do it. The Tripura Bonded Warehouse agreed to dispose of the stock of the plaintiff keeping the stock in the bonded warehouse (existing) of the plaintiff. W.V.--'it is not permissible in law'. It is not correct that as per Excise Acts and Rules the Tripura Bonded Warehouse might be permitted to dispose of the stock of the plaintiff keeping the stock in the Warehouse of the plaintiff. It is not correct that though the Tripura Bonded Warehouse expressed to purchase the stock of the plaintiff, the defendant intentionally refused the same causing loss to the plaintiff. The owner of bonded warehouse need not pay the excise duty to the Government until he sells out his stock to the retailer. It is not correct that the demand of the defendants for payment of excise duty of 8 lacs 69 thousand 049 is beyond the law. It is not correct that due to the negligence of the defendants the plaintiff suffered loss as stated in the plaint and the defendants are liable to pay the same to the plaintiff. 10. In view of the above statement of D.W.1, it is made crystal clear that the Bonded Warehouse of the plaintiff-appellant was all alone kept under double lock having one key with the plaintiff-appellant and the other with the Officer of the Excise Department. The plaintiff-appellant had no scope to dispose the stock of his own. The plaintiff appellant was supposed to dispose the stock only as per the provisions prescribed under Rule 153 of the Rules. As already stated earlier, the defendant-respondents demanded payment of Rs.8,68,049/- to be paid by the plaintiff-appellant for shifting the stocks to the license holder Bonded Warehouses but the statement of the D.W.1 makes it clear that the payment of excise duty was supposed to be made by the retail vendor who would purchase the intoxicants from the Bonded Warehouses as per the permit issued by the Excise Authority. Law is very clear that the licenses of Bonded Warehouses are distributed by the defendant-respondents and the licenses of retail vendors are also distributed by the defendant-respondents. The defendant-respondents issue permits to the retail vendors and the retail vendors opt for purchasing the intoxicants from the Warehouse of their choice. Law is very clear that the licenses of Bonded Warehouses are distributed by the defendant-respondents and the licenses of retail vendors are also distributed by the defendant-respondents. The defendant-respondents issue permits to the retail vendors and the retail vendors opt for purchasing the intoxicants from the Warehouse of their choice. The provisions of law as prescribed in the Act and Rules is abundantly clear that a license holder Bonded Warehouse owner cannot dispose any quantity of the intoxicants from the Bonded Warehouse to any retail vendors or otherwise unless a permit is issued to a retailer by the defendant-respondents. In the moment the license of the plaintiff-appellant had expired, he was handicapped in respect of sale of unsold stocks and he was supposed to dispose it according to the provisions prescribed by Rules. Rule 153 is relevant here which reads thus:- 153. Sale by one vendor to another vendor: (1) A person who has been a licensed vendor may, on expiration of his license, with the sanction of the Collector, sell wholesale to another licensed vendor any intoxicant which he is authorized under the condition of his license to sell and of which he has been lawfully in possession; Provided that the intoxicant is fit for use and, in the case of country spirit, that it is within the limits of strength fixed for retail sale. (2) If he is unable to dispose of them in this manner he shall, on the requisition of the Collector, surrender the same to such officer as the Collector may appoint in this behalf; and the person whom a new license has been granted instead of the said licensed vendor or, if no such new license has been granted, then any licensed vendor of the intoxicant within the district shall, in the requisition of the Collector, be bound under penalty, if the Collector sees fit of forfeiting his license, to buy the said intoxicant at such price as the Collector may adjudge, and in any quantity not exceeding that which the Collector may determine to be ordinarily saleable by him in fourteen days: Provided that, if the Collector considers that the intoxicant or any part thereof is unfit for use or has otherwise deteriorated so as to be un saleable he shall cause the same to be destroyed with any compensation being claimable by the former licensed. 11. 11. The above provision makes it clear that the Collector has got responsibility for disposal of unsold stock of a license holder Bonded Warehouse whose license expired. It is evident in the pleadings and evidence on record that the plaintiff had a considerable quantity of unsold IMFL and Beer in his godown and it was the duty of the Collector to arrange sale of the same to the license holder Bonded Warehouses after the license of the plaintiff was expired and he remained unsuccessful to get a license in tender process. The order passed by this Court on 5.5.1997 as reproduced above, makes it clear that in case no existing wholesaler is agreeable to lift the remaining stock from the petitioner's Bonded Warehouse the Collector will pass appropriate orders according to Rules for disposal of the stock. It is an undisputed fact that the Collector issued notice to the license holder Bonded Warehouses but nobody agreed to take the stock lying with the plaintiff. It was, therefore, the duty of the Collector either to issue permit to the retail vendor to arrange sale of the stock of the plaintiff or to issue direction to the license holder Bonded Warehouses to collect the stock but the Collector failed to discharge his duty. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 153 prescribes that the Collector would pass appropriate order to a new licensee in respect of the stock of a previous license holder but the Collector has failed to do so though there was enough representation on the part of the plaintiff. The trial court, as I find, totally failed to appreciate the factual and legal aspect of the case and arrived at a wrong finding misreading the provisions of Section 92 and 93 of the Act. 12. Let us have a glimpse to section 92 & 93 of the Act, which reads thus-- 92. Bar to certain suit:- No suit shall lie in any civil court against the State Government, Excise Commissioner, Collector or any Excise Officer for damages for any, act done in good faith or ordered to be done in pursuance of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force relating to the excise revenue. 93. Bar to certain suit:- No suit shall lie in any civil court against the State Government, Excise Commissioner, Collector or any Excise Officer for damages for any, act done in good faith or ordered to be done in pursuance of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force relating to the excise revenue. 93. Limitation of suit and prosecutions:- No civil court shall try any suit against the Government or any Excise Officer in respect of anything done, or alleged to have been done, in pursuance of this Act, and, except with the previous sanction of the State Government, no Magistrate shall take cognizance of any charge made against any Excise Officer under this Act or any other law relating to the excise revenue or made against any other person under this Act. A bare reading of the above provisions makes it clear that a Civil suit is generally barred against the State Govt. or against an Excise Officer in respect of any damage etc, for the acts done in good faith relating to excise revenue (emphasis supplied). The provision intended to give certain protection to the State Govt. and such officers of the Excise Department of the Govt. from being harassed with frivolous litigation in the Court of law for the act done by them in good faith relating to the excise revenue. Generally, the Excise Officers with a view to enforce the provision of Excise Act and Rules framed thereunder, cause search and seizure of goods/articles which is subject matter of excise duty and also cause arrest of such perpetrators of excise crime. A close reading of the entire scheme of the Act makes it clear that the legislature with a definite intention of protecting the State Govt. and the Officer of the Excise Department, incorporated the provisions excluding jurisdiction of Court only with a view to provide a protection from frivolous cases against them for the acts done by them in good faith relating to Excise Revenue. It does not necessarily clothed the State Govt. or the officers of the Excise Department of such government with an immunity from any act done by them which causes damage to a person. It does not necessarily clothed the State Govt. or the officers of the Excise Department of such government with an immunity from any act done by them which causes damage to a person. A Civil Court's power cannot be ousted altogether by making such a provision in the act unless alternative relief mechanism is prescribed in the enactment in which such a specific bar is included. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the power of Civil Court to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance either expressly or impliedly barred. Here in this case the Tripura Excise Act expressly barred the jurisdiction of Civil Court and thereby immunized the Government or Government servants from any liability there under. Such immunity clause, however, may not bar a suit from claiming damage if the Act is silent about an alternative remedy under such circumstances. A bare reading of the Tripura Excise Act makes it clear that there is no mechanism prescribed in the Act to redress the grievance of a person who alleged to have suffered damage for action and/or inaction of the State Govt. or the government servant. The principles of exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dulabhai & Ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. reported in AIR 1969 SC 78 which reads as follows:- (1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the Civil Court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in Civil Courts are prescribed by the said statue or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act us ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies. (6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply. The law laid down above has since been followed in numerous subsequent decisions till date. In the case at hand, for the damage alleged to have caused to the appellant, for the act of the respondents, no remedy is prescribed in the Tripura Excise Act. In my considered opinion, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dhulabhai (supra) the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit to extend appropriate relief to the litigant. In my considered opinion, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dhulabhai (supra) the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit to extend appropriate relief to the litigant. Following the principles laid down in Dhulabhai (supra) the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Narain Sharma Vs. Burmah Shell Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. reported in (2002) 7 SCC 46 has held thus: It is not possible to agree with the reasoning that a civil court cannot under any circumstances entertain a civil suit in respect of proceedings pending before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Even where exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is statutorily provided, still on availability of requisite grounds the civil court can entertain a civil suit on well defined parameters settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. In any case it is not possible to subscribe to the view that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies could have ignored the order of the civil court as not binding on him in view of the provisions contained in Sections 93(3), 93(1)(c) and 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act. It will be a dangerous proposition to be laid down as one of law that any individual or authority can ignore the order of the civil court by assuming authority upon itself to decide that the order of the civil court is one by coram non judice. The appropriate course in such case is for the person aggrieved first to approach the civil court inviting its attention to the relevant provisions of law and call upon it to adjudicate upon the question of its own jurisdiction and to vacate or recall its order if it be one which it did not have jurisdiction in law to make. So long as this is not done, the order of the competent court must be obeyed and respected by all concerned. A judicial order, not invalid on its face, must be given effect to entailing all consequences, till it is declared void in a duly constituted judicial proceedings. In the case of Bantawala Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. A judicial order, not invalid on its face, must be given effect to entailing all consequences, till it is declared void in a duly constituted judicial proceedings. In the case of Bantawala Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. reported in (2011) 13 SCC 446 , the Apex Court relying on the principles laid down in Dhulabhai (Supra) on the question of ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court, in Para 86 of the judgment held thus:- 86. We may next deal with the contention of the respondents that the exclusionary clauses are to be read strictly. In Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai, (2005) 10 SCC 760, relied upon by the respondents, this Court was concerned with a suit for declaration as to the succession to a particular trust governed under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Such a suit was squarely covered under that Act and, therefore, it was held that the civil court will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The seven principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1969 SC 78 ) were relied upon in that case. It is sufficient to refer to the first two principles therefrom which are as follows: (AIR p.89, para 32) (1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. If we apply these two tests and examine the scheme of the Public Premises Act, it will be seen that Section 10 of the Act does give a finality to the orders passed by the Estate Officers or the Appellate Officers, and states that the same "shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. In the case at hand, the plaintiff-appellant under a license issued by the authority, gathered the stock of IMFL and Beer etc. but because of his license was not renewed and/or that he did not get the license following tender process, and, because of the law that he cannot dispose the stock of his own, definitely the responsibility was on the defendant-respondents to arrange disposal of the stock of the plaintiff-appellant. Rule 153 clearly prescribes the provision for disposal of such stock which the defendant-respondents failed to apply and therefore, a Civil suit for damages and/or loss caused to the plaintiff-appellant surely maintainable against the defendant-respondents and the provisions of Section 92 and 93 cannot be applied as a bar. If Section 92 and 93 is strictly applied irrespective of the factual situation of the case, the plaintiff-appellant will be remediless. The decision of the Court below in respect of Section 92 and 93 of the Act as held applicable in the case of plaintiff-appellant was wrong and liable to be interfered. 13. The plaintiff-appellant clearly brought on record with oral and documentary evidence that the price of destructed IMFL was Rs.3,12,604/-. The plaintiff-appellant also calculated godown rent @ Rs.10,000/-per month from 31.03.1995 till 11.11.1997 and the amount was Rs.3,15,000/-. The labour cost for shifting all the stock for destruction, the plaintiff-appellant claimed as Rs.3000/-. This amount of Rs.6,30,604 the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to get as damages from the defendant-respondents. The plaintiff-appellant also calculated godown rent @ Rs.10,000/-per month from 31.03.1995 till 11.11.1997 and the amount was Rs.3,15,000/-. The labour cost for shifting all the stock for destruction, the plaintiff-appellant claimed as Rs.3000/-. This amount of Rs.6,30,604 the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to get as damages from the defendant-respondents. 13.1 The plaintiff-appellant also claimed 15% interest per annum on the cost price of the destructed intoxicants i.e. Rs.3,12,604/- and thereby claimed a total amount of Rs.7,98,627/-. I find no justification in the claim of 15% interest of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant is legally entitled to get Rs.6,30,604/- from the defendant-respondents. The defendant-respondents should make payment of the same with 6% simple interest thereon from the date of service of notice under Section 80 CPC i.e. from 20.11.1998. The defendant-respondents are directed to make the payment within 60 days failing which the amount shall carry a penal interest @ 12% per annum. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division dated 18.05.2001 & 02.06.2001 respectively is set aside. Plaintiff-appellant is entitled to get Rs.6,30,604/- (Rupees six lakh thirty thousand six hundred four) with 6% simple interest thereon from the date of service of notice under Section 80 CPC i.e., w.e.f. 20.11.1998. The defendant-respondents should make payment of the same within 60 days failing which it shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum. 16. The appeal accordingly, stands disposed of. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed.