Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1521 (JHR)

Muni Lal Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2012-10-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2, Commissioner Excise, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the request of the petitioner to refund the advance license fee of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which was paid for license to sale foreign liquor for financial year 2001-02 in the area of Dhanbad district, has been rejected and the amount is said to be forfeited. 3. The writ petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4346 of 2006 with grievance that the respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. This Court directed the Commissioner Excise, Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the grievance of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order while observing that if the petitioner's claim is found genuine and if any amount is found payable to him, the same must be paid within a period of four weeks, thereafter. If the amount, found payable to the petitioner, is not paid to him within the said period, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said amount till the date of final payment. The impugned order has been passed pursuant thereto rejecting the application for refund of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner was granted license for sale of foreign liquor for the period of 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 in the district of Dhanbad by the respondent authorities. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of advance fee in lieu of said license. Thereafter, the petitioner was implicated in the case bearing C.E. Case No. 71 of 2001 and C.E. Case No. 285 pf 2001 under Section 47A of the Excise Act. It is further submitted that on pleaded guilty, he was acquitted under Section 47A in C.E. Case No. 71 of 2001 by order dated 10.10.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. In the other case, the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges vide judgment dated 13.06.2005. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondent for refund of the license fee and made representation which were not responded and therefore, the petitioner had moved this Court in W. P. (C) No. 4364 of 2006, which was disposed of by order dated 01.09.2006 as stated hereinabove. 5. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner has been refused seeking refund of Rs. 5. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner has been refused seeking refund of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which was deposited as advance fee in lieu of the license, on the ground that he had violated the terms and conditions of the license, which was granted to him. 6. The petitioner has relied upon the terms and conditions contained at Annexure-1 and submits that it does not provide for forfeiture of advance fee deposited in lieu of license. It is further submitted that Excise Act does not contain any provision for such matters of penalty in the nature of forfeiture of license fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that forfeiture of license fee in the nature of penalty which can only be imposed under authority of law and as such, the refusal of refund of the same is wholly arbitrary and illegal. 7. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavits. It has been submitted that petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the license and was found to have stored liquor at different places other than places enumerated for the purposes and the same were seized during the course of raid and show cause was issued upon him and thereafter, the license was canceled. The petitioner was imposed fine after pleading guilty before the Trial Court in one of the complaint cases as stated hereinabove and therefore, forfeiture of the advance license fee is wholly justified as being imposed for infraction of terms and conditions of the license itself. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The terms and conditions of license (Annexure-1) provided that infraction of any of the conditions of license or of the general conditions applicable to the excise and opium vend license will subject the holder of the license to forfeiture of the license and to all or any of the penalties prescribed by law or rule. The license of the petitioner admittedly has been forfeited for violation of the terms and conditions of license hereinabove. The forfeiture of the license itself entails the consequence arising therefrom i.e. the forfeiture of the license fee, which were imposed as a condition for grant of license. The license of the petitioner admittedly has been forfeited for violation of the terms and conditions of license hereinabove. The forfeiture of the license itself entails the consequence arising therefrom i.e. the forfeiture of the license fee, which were imposed as a condition for grant of license. The Commissioner Excise, Jharkhand, Ranchi has passed the impugned order taking into account the aforesaid facts that petitioner's license was cancelled for violation of terms and conditions of the license and fine was imposed upon him on his pleading guilty. In these circumstances, the application for refund of the petitioner has been rejected. The forfeiture of the license fee, therefore, is a consequences of forfeiture of license itself for violation of terms and conditions of the license. I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and as such, this writ petition is without any merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.