Order I.A. No. 356 of 2015 This application has been filed seeking permission to amend the prayer clause in the writ petition by incorporating the following prayer: “1 (i) directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 1,48,13,595.00 (Rupees One Crore Forty Eight Lacs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Five Only) which has been recovered upon encashment of the Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner along with interest calculated @ 18% per annum from the date of its encashment to the date of its refund.” 2. Since this is the first listing of the writ petition, no prejudice would cause to the respondent-State of Jharkhand, if the present application is allowed. 3. Accordingly, I. A. No. 356 of 2015 is allowed. W.P.(C) No. 6129 of 2014 Seeking quashing of order contained in memo dated 20.10.2014 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,48,13,594.28 and for a direction to the Excise Commissioner to grant exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of spiced country liquor for the period 2014-18 which has been arbitrarily withheld on account of demand made vide memo dated 20.10.2014, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a private limited company which submitted its bid in response to tender notice dated 22.02.2011 for grant of exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of spiced country liquor to the retail licensees/Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014. Due to the reasons not attributable to the petitioner, grant of licence was delayed by more than one year and finally, it was granted for the remaining period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014. The period under the licence was further extended till 30.09.2014 and, 20 days after the extended licence period expired, vide memo dated 20.10.2014, a demand for Rs. 1,48,13,594.28 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise (HQ), Ranchi. The petitioner had submitted its bid keeping in mind the existing rate of rectified spirit @ Rs. 26.98 per bulk litre and the final rate was determined by the Board of Revenue, in terms of the lowest rate quoted by M/s Bhattacharya Bottling Plant Pvt. Limited. 1,48,13,594.28 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise (HQ), Ranchi. The petitioner had submitted its bid keeping in mind the existing rate of rectified spirit @ Rs. 26.98 per bulk litre and the final rate was determined by the Board of Revenue, in terms of the lowest rate quoted by M/s Bhattacharya Bottling Plant Pvt. Limited. The rate so finalised does not indicate that it included the proposed cost of Hologram and thus, the petitioner rightly believed that in the rate which was finalised more than one year after the bids were submitted, the enhanced price of rectified spirit and other input cost must have been kept in mind. It is further stated that, since the Government of Jharkhand did not take a decision to affix Hologram on country liquor bottles/sachets, the petitioner believed that the proposed cost of Hologram was also not included when the rate was finalised by the Board of Revenue. After the expiry of extended period of grant, without initiating a proceeding or issuing a show-cause notice, a demand notice dated 20.10.2014 was issued requiring the petitioner to refund the cost of Hologram @ Rs. 0.18 paisa which was to be charged for each bottle/sachet of spiced country liquor supplied to the Corporation and to the retail licensees. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The issued involved in the writ petition is a pure question of law and therefore, no counter-affidavit is required in the matter. 4. Mr Jitendra Singh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that about 15 months after the bids were submitted by the tenderers, the price was finalised, after negotiation. Referring to Gazette Notification dated 22.02.2011, the learned Senior Counsel submits that there is a provision in the Gazette Notification which provides that the Board of Revenue, Jharkhand may not accept the lowest or any other bid and the Board has power to grant licence for exclusive privilege by negotiation. Clause 12($a) of the said notification provides that in case of increase or fall in the price of spirit, the price of country liquor would be revised. Since the rate was finalised 15 months after the final bids were submitted by the tenderers, the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that, the rise in the price of spirit has proportionately been kept in mind by the Board of Revenue. Since the rate was finalised 15 months after the final bids were submitted by the tenderers, the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that, the rise in the price of spirit has proportionately been kept in mind by the Board of Revenue. Relying on a decision in “S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & Ors.” (1980) 4 SCC 379 ”, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the demand notice dated 20.10.2014 visits the petitioner with civil consequences and therefore, the minimum requirement in law is that, the respondent-Excise Commissioner should have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that without initiating a proceeding for recovery, the amount indicated in the demand notice dated 20.10.2014 cannot be recovered. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand opposes the writ petition and submits that in view of specific provision under the Notice Inviting Tender, the petitioner is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 1,48,13,594.28. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Before referring to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, various clauses under the NIT and the licence as well as the order of grant may usefully be noticed. Under Clause 6(¢) of NIT, a condition has been imposed on the contractors to affix Hologram sticker on the bottles/sachets, if the Government takes a decision in this behalf. Clause 7(k) requires the tenderer to submit bids which would include Hologram cost besides, cost/expenses on various counts. I am of the opinion that once the petitioner submitted its bid, there would be a presumption that the petitioner has included expenses for each item which is indicated under Clause 7(k) including, the expenses for affixing Hologram. Clause 7(k) of NIT is extracted below: “7(k). I am of the opinion that once the petitioner submitted its bid, there would be a presumption that the petitioner has included expenses for each item which is indicated under Clause 7(k) including, the expenses for affixing Hologram. Clause 7(k) of NIT is extracted below: “7(k). The bidder in his financial bid at Schedule2'A' shall indicate the rate (including cost price of Spirit, Excise duty, Licence fee, Permit fee/Import/Export duty, cost of Bottle/Label, wastage caused in transportation/working/storage, establishment cost/payment of wages, rent of the Godown, expenditure on machine and tools, electricity, devaluation/bank interest, packaging cost/cork/bottle cap, cost of the label, cost incurred in transportation upto the Godown situated in the area of the Corporation, Generator/Fuel expenditure, crates, cost of Hologram, profit) at which they shall supply bottles of 600ml, 300ml and 150ml and country made liquor of 60 degree U.P. in 400ml and 200ml Sachet.” 8. The rates were finalised after negotiation, is the case of the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of NIT and the licence and it has agreed to accept the grant of exclusive privilege on the rate fixed by the Board of Revenue. After the petitioner was granted exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of spiced country liquor, it has to be understood in law that the rate finalised by the Board of Revenue included expenses on each count as indicated in Clause 7(k) and it was accepted by the petitioner willingly unless shown otherwise and thus, the petitioner cannot raise a grievance when expense factored for affixing Hologram is sought to be recovered by the Excise Department. The dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner with respect to increase in rate between the period when the bids were submitted and the licence was finally granted, is of no consequence. It was for the petitioner to accept or refuse the grant of licence. After the petitioner accepted the grant of licence on the rate fixed by the Board of Revenue, it is not open to the petitioner to plead increase in price, to justify appropriation of the cost for affixing Hologram which was included in the bid price. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on decision in “S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & Ors.” (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus, “7. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on decision in “S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & Ors.” (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus, “7. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away and we have been liberated from the psittacine incantation of “administrative action”. Now, from the time of the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei “even an administrative order which involves civil consequences . . . must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice”. What are civil consequences? The question was posed and answered by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi. “But what is a civil consequence, let us ask ourselves, by passing verbal boobytraps? ‘Civil consequences’ undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence.” The learned Judge then proceeded to quote from Black’s Legal Dictionary and to consider the interest of a candidate at a parliamentary election. He finally said: (SCC p. 441, para 66) “The appellant has a right to have the election conducted not according to humour or hubris but according to law and justice. And so natural justice cannot be stumped out on this score. In the region of public law locus standi and person aggrieved, right and interest have a broader import.” 9. From the facts noticed above, it is apparent that the petitioner has been asked to refund the cost for affixing Hologram on bottles/sachets. The demand thus made is relatable to a clause in NIT. The petitioner thus, cannot raise a grievance that by order contained in demand notice dated 20.10.2014, it has been visited with civil consequences. A demand made in relation to a provision under NIT, cannot be said to have ensued civil consequences. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that the cases of grant of exclusive privilege by the State to a licensee to the exclusion of others has to be dealt in the context of complete power exercised by the Government in this regard. In “State of Punjab Vs. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that the cases of grant of exclusive privilege by the State to a licensee to the exclusion of others has to be dealt in the context of complete power exercised by the Government in this regard. In “State of Punjab Vs. Ajudhia Nath”, (1981) 3 SCC 251 , it has been held that in cases where a demand is made under the condition subject to which licence was granted, there is no requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus, “8. Thus, the proposition is by now well-settled that although an opportunity of being heard has to be given to a liquor vendor when his licence is sought to be cancelled, the same principle of natural justice does not come into play when the demand is merely for payment of a sum becoming due under the conditions subject to which the licence was granted, and this proposition fully covers those appeals. The demands for payment of the amount of still-head duty which had become due under the contracts accepted by the respondents and had remained unpaid were demands arising under Condition 8 above extracted and had, therefore, resulted from the terms of those contracts. No question of affording to the respondents any opportunity of being heard thus arises and the impugned judgment, is, therefore, liable to be reversed.” 10. The demand made vide notice dated 20.10.2014 is a consequence of government's decision not to affix Hologram on the bottles/sachets and the said demand is referable to Clause 7(k) of NIT. The petitioner has contended that there is nothing on record nor the licence or the grant order indicates that the price for affixing Hologram was included in the price fixed by the Board of Revenue. This contention is contrary to Clause 7(k) of NIT. The bid price must be deemed to include the price for Hologram. The negotiation with parties must be confined to total price for manufacture and supply. It is for the petitioner to bring on record materials evidencing the contention that the Hologram price was not included in the price fixed by the Board of Revenue. In fact, in terms of NIT, the tenderers were required to include the price for Hologram in their bids, irrespective of the fact that by that time no government decision was taken for affixing Hologram. In fact, in terms of NIT, the tenderers were required to include the price for Hologram in their bids, irrespective of the fact that by that time no government decision was taken for affixing Hologram. On further scrutiny, I find that under Clause 24 of NIT, a tenderer is bound to comply with the orders passed by the Excise Commissioner. Under Form 27(g) in which the licence is issued, there is a similar provision under Clause 10($ a). It further appears that even after completion of the period for which the licence is awarded, the Excise Commissioner retains jurisdiction to decide the price for sale of spirit/country liquor which has remained unsold. In the licence dated 19.05.2012, there are provisions under Clause 13 and Clause 21 which indicate that the Excise Commissioner would have jurisdiction even after the period under the licence has expired. Though, it is not a case in which the Department has sought to correct a mistake, it may not be out of context to note that a mistake also can be corrected at any stage. In “V.S.N.L Vs. Ajit Kumar Kar & Ors.” reported in (2008) 11 SCC 591 , it has been held that, a bona fide mistake does not confer any right on any party and it can be corrected. 11. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has not brought on record any material which would conclusively prove that the cost for affixing Hologram was excluded by the Board of Revenue, to the knowledge of all the participants, from the price finalised for grant of exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of spiced country liquor. On the contrary, the notice inviting tender and the licence dated 19.05.2012 unerringly disclose that cost for affixing Hologram was included in the price bid submitted by the petitioner and the Excise Commissioner has jurisdiction to recover the same because ultimately, the Hologram was not affixed on the bottles/sachets. In so far as, cost for affixing Hologram charged @ Rs. 0.18 per bottle/sachet is concerned, there is no dispute and the petitioner has not challenged the cost of Rs. 0.18 per bottle/sachet. It further appears from Annexure4 that the cost of Hologram has been calculated taking into account total number of bottles/sachets for the entire period, which naturally could have been demanded after the expiry of the extended licence period. 0.18 per bottle/sachet is concerned, there is no dispute and the petitioner has not challenged the cost of Rs. 0.18 per bottle/sachet. It further appears from Annexure4 that the cost of Hologram has been calculated taking into account total number of bottles/sachets for the entire period, which naturally could have been demanded after the expiry of the extended licence period. Moreover, the power of the Excise Commissioner to order recovery of excess amount on account of cost of Hologram is also not challenged. Now, in view of the admitted facts, I am of the opinion that there was no requirement in law to issue a notice or initiate a proceeding for recovery. In “Har Shankar & Ors. Vs. Excise & Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr. & Ors.”, (1975) 1 SCC 737 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus, “16. Those interested in running the country liquor vends offered their bids voluntarily in the auctions held for granting licences for the sale of country liquor. The terms and conditions of auctions were announced before the auctions were held and the bidders participated in the auctions without a demur and with full knowledge of the commitments which the bids involved. The announcement of conditions governing the auctions were in the nature of an invitation to an offer to those who were interested in the sale of country liquor. The bids given in the auctions were offers made by prospective vendors to the Government. The Government’s acceptance of those bids was the acceptance of willing offers made to it. On such acceptance, the contract between the bidders and the Government became concluded and a binding agreement came into existence between them. The successful bidders were then granted licences evidencing the terms of contract between them and the Government, under which they became entitled to sell liquor. The licensees exploited the respective licences for a portion of the period of their currency, presumably in expectation of a profit. Commercial considerations may have revealed an error of judgment in the initial assessment of profitability of the adventure but that is a normal incident of all trading transactions. Those who contract with open eyes must accept the burdens of the contract along with its benefits.........” 12. Commercial considerations may have revealed an error of judgment in the initial assessment of profitability of the adventure but that is a normal incident of all trading transactions. Those who contract with open eyes must accept the burdens of the contract along with its benefits.........” 12. In so far as, the prayer seeking a direction to the Excise Commissioner to grant exclusive privilege for the period 2014-18 is concerned, there is no pleading in the writ petition except, a statement in paragraph no. 26 of the writ petition that it has been awarded to it nor submission was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on this issue and therefore, I am not required to deal with the same. Moreover, this prayer appears to have been incorporated due to anxiety of the petitioner for grant of exclusive privilege for the period 2014-18. 13. In the result, I find no merit and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6635 of 2014 also stands dismissed.