LexTHAKUR PRASAD SAO ETC. versus THE MEMBER. BOARD OF REVENUE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
II E .F G THAKUR PRASAD SAO ETC. v. THE MEMBER. BOARD OF REVENUE & ORS. December 18. 1975 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SlllNGHAL, JJ.] Biliur & ()ris!:irl FKcisl' Act 1915-Ss. 22 and 30-Liceuce pn111ted 111;dcr s. 22 an exclusive pril'ihge-lnahility to open liquor shop-If l·ntitled to refund of fees-Incurring loss-If a gro1111d for reduction of fees-if refund .1fiould be granted if quid pro quo is absent. Under the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act the holder of an outstill licence for country liquor pays a certain sum per mensem for manufacturing country spirit in his outstill nnd selling it by retail in his premises. No definite are:i. is fixed within which each outstill has the n1onopoly to supply country spirit but thci1 number is regulated according to rules and five miles is taken a~ the minimun1 distance betV1'een one outstill and another. · The appellants in all the appeals were the holders of licences for the manu~ facturing and sale of country liquor. In the first batch of cases the appellant could not open the outsill even after more than si_X months of its gr~int despite his best efforts. The approval for op::ning the outstill \vas withdra\Vn and ht~ \Vas asked to pay the monthly licence fee according to the terms of licence. The appellant's clairn for refund of the money deposited by him. together with com- pensation for loss of anticipated profits and da1nages, \vas rejected. l)cspite this, the appellant continued to bid for licences during the subsequent three year" nnd claimed refund and damages, which claim was rejected by the wuthoritics. In the second batch of appeals the appellants claimed reduction of the licence fee for outstill liquor shops on the ground that they incurred losses because of the speculative bids at the auction should have been prevented by the 2uthorities. Jn the third batch of cases th_e appellants claim·td refund of <;urns realised from them on the ground that there was no quid pro quo for the fees. Jn all the. cases the High Court dismissed their wTit petitions. On appeal it \Vas contended that the High Court \Vas wrong in holding that exclusive privilege had been granted under s. 22 of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act, 1915 but that the licences fell within the purvie\V of s. 30 of the Act. Dismissing the appeals, HELD : ( 1) It is futile to contend that the licences were n1ercly licences for the retail sale of spirit for consumption on the vendor's premises \Yithin the meaning of s. 30 of the Act. The essential feature of the outstill system is that the holder of a licence acquires the right to manufacture country spirit in his outstill and sell it by retail "in his premises" \Vithout any restriction on the strength or prices at which the spirit is manufa:etured or sold. He has a mono~ poly of manufacturing and supplying country liquor within his area. The right is, therefore, an cxclnsive privilege within the meaning of s. 22( 1) ( d _) of the Act. [38A-C] (2) The licences of the appellants remained in force for the purposes fo:· I • Vv'hich they were granted and by virtue of the express provisions of s. 45 they }·, could have no claim to compensation. [38 G] (3) Even though the I-Jigh Court has held that \Vhat \Vas ~ranted was an cxclusivci privilege under s. 22, it did not notice s. 44(2) \vhile taki11g the vie'v that the petitioner was at liberty to surrender the licence. Section 44(2) clearly provides that sub·s. ( 1) of that section shall not apply in the case of a licence for the sale of any country liquor in exercise of an exclusive privilege granted under s. 22(c). [38 F-G] (4) There is no!hing wrong in the vie\V taken by the High Court that the responsibility for finding a suitable site was that of the appellant. There is no I T. P. SAO I'. BOARD OF REVENUE (Shinghal, !. ) 35 justification for the argument that nothing was payable by the appellant because A he could not Jocate the shop in spite of his best efforts. The appellants retained the licence all through and continued to make higher bids at the subsequent public auctions thereby preventing others from undertaking the responsibility' of establishing tbe outstills. [40 B-D] (5} It \vas permissible for the State to frame rules for the grant of licences on payment of fees fixed by auction, for that was only a mode or medium for ascertaining the best price for the grant of exclusive privilege of n1anufacturing &
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.