ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.6.2011 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand in Board Case No.21 of 2008, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for refund of license fees deposited by the petitioner for grant of exclusive privilege of manufacture and wholesale supply of country liquor in the District of Dhanbad for the remaining period of the financial year 2007-08 has been rejected. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner has filed application for refund of license fees mainly on the ground that no business could be transacted by the petitioner for the period of grant on account of total failure of Excise Department, Dhanbad to operate the retail licenses in the District and ensure supply of liquor from the warehouse to the retail outlets. On that ground the petitioner has claimed refund of the license fee amounting to Rs. 30,84,466/-deposited for grant of license. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the license was granted after depositing the said license fees, but not a single drop of country liquor was lifted by the retail country liquor outlets in the District of Dhanbad which, in fact, was operated by the Excise Department, Dhanbad. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, as contained in Annexure-11. The Member, Board of Revenue has discussed the petitioner's ground in detail and has come to the finding that from the record it is evident that the petitioner had not commenced production and since there was no commencement of production, there was no question of supply or lifting of liquor by the retail outlets. Learned Member, Board of Revenue has also come to the finding that the fault is on the part of the petitioner and, as such, he is not entitled for remission or refund as claimed for by him. 5. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has also admitted that there was no commencement of production of liquor, as the Excise Department unnecessarily put hurdles by seeking no objection from the landlord and by their other acts and omissions. 6. 5. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has also admitted that there was no commencement of production of liquor, as the Excise Department unnecessarily put hurdles by seeking no objection from the landlord and by their other acts and omissions. 6. From the order it appears that the petitioner has alleged that the production could not be commenced due to unnecessary impediment created by the respondents, whereas the respondents have stated that the petitioner was at fault. He has not produced any proof of production and has claimed refund on the allegation that not a single drop of liquor was lifted by the retail outlets. 7. In view of the petitioner's claim of refund on the basis that there was total failure of the Excise Department in not lifting the liquor, though it is the admitted case that there was no production of liquor, I find no case made out to interfere with the impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue. Further, the petitioner has raised several questions of facts, which have been disputed by the respondents, which also cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. I, therefore, find no ground made out to grant any relief to the petitioner. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.