TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to obtain a reduction of the fees. As has been pointed out, that was clearly a matter within the discretion of the Board of Revenue under section 39, and the wordings of the note appended to paragraph 130 could not overreach that provision of the law. Moreover, the question whether the circumstances mentioned in the note were at all in existence in the case of the appeals under consideration, was a question of fact which could not be tried in these proceedings. The High Court has rightly rejected that contention for the reason that the amounts in question were payable for the licences which had been granted for the exclusive privilege in question and, as has been shown, that argument is no longer available to the appellant in view of this Court's decisions in Nashirwar's case (1974 (11) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT) and Har Shankar's case (1975 (1) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT). Appeals dismissed. - C.A. 819 OF 1975 - - - Dated:- 18-12-1975 - P. N. Shingal, A. N. Ray, M. Hameedullah Beg and Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, JJ. JUDGMENT These ten appeals against two judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raise some common questions of law. They have been argued together, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit of Rs. 7,300/- and for payment of compensation for loss of anticipated profits and dam ages, but the application was rejected. It appears that the appellant went on bidding at the bids for the subsequent three years, and laid similar claims for refund and damages, but to no avail. He then filed the bunch of writ petitions referred to above for quashing the demand notices, but they have been dismissed as aforesaid by the High Court's judgment dated January 2, 1975. Civil Appeal No. 825 relates to the bid for 1966-67, Civil Appeal No. 824 relates to the bid for 1967- 68, while Civil Appeals Nos. 826 and 827 relate to the bids for 1968-69 and 1969-70. These may be said to be group 'A' appeals. Civil Appeals Nos. 819-823 of 1975 relate to the applications of appellants Thakur Prasad Sao and others for reduction of the licence fees for outstill liquor shops at Gua, Noamandi, Kiriburu, Andheri, Goiekara, Patajai and Dangusposi for 1974-75. In these cases the licensees were T. P. Sao or his relations or employees. They claimed that they incurred a loss of Rs. 55,874.79 at Gua, of Rs. 26,651.45 at Noamandi, of Rs. 39,389.53 at Kiriburu of Rs. 35,169.40 at Andheri, of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outstill licence pays a certain sum per men sem for manufacturing country spirit in his outstill and selling it by retail on his premises. No attempt is made to regulate the strengths or the prices at which spirit is manufactured or It has been stated in paragraphs 254 and 255 of the Manual that no . definite area is fixed within which each outstill has the monopoly of supply of country spirit , but their number is regulated according to rules, and five miles is taken roughly as the minimum distance of one outstill from another. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants, that what was granted to them was not the exclusive privilege of manufacturing and selling country liquor in retail, in the areas for which the licences were granted, and that the High Court erred in holding that such an exclusive privilege had been granted under section 22 of the Act. It has been urged that the licences in question fell within the purview of section 30 of the Act We have described the essential features of the outstill system, and there can be no doubt that the holder of a licence under the system acquires the right to manufacture country spirit in his outstill and sell it by retail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted and, by virtue of the express provisions of section 45, they could have no claim to compensation. In such a situation, counsel for the appellants have placed considerable reliance on paragraph 121 of the Manual and have argued that the High Court erred in taking the view that the instructions contained in it had no statutory force and its benefit was not available to the appellants. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Sukhdev Singh and others v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and another([1975] 3 S.C.R 619.), Laljee Dubey and others v. Union of India and others ([1974] 2 S.C.R. 249) Union of India v. K. P. Joseph and others([1973] 2 S.C.R. 75.) Paragraph 121 of the Manual states, inter alia, that a person whose bid has been accepted by the presiding officer at the auction must pay the sum required on account of advance fee immediately. It states further that the purchaser would be liable for any loss that may accrue to government in case it becomes necessary to resell the shops for a lower sum in consequence of his failure to pay the sum at the time of the sale. Then there is the following subparagraph on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re been urged that there was no lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant and it was a matter of no consequence that he did not surrender his licence. It will be recalled that it was an incident of the outstill system that the holder of an outstill licence was allowed to manufacture country spirit within a certain area and he paid a certain sum of money per mensem for manufacturing country spirit in his outstill and selling it by retail on his premises . It was therefore permissible for appellant Ayodhya Prasad to locate the shop at Bharbharia or at some other suitable place within his area, with the permission of the Collector. The notice which had been issued for the public auction is on the record and condition No. 5 thereof expressly states that the department would not be responsible for providing the place for the location of the outstill. Moreover it was expressly stated that the outstill at Bharbharia would be settled purely as a temporary measure on condition that an undisputed site was made available for it. There is therefore nothing wrong with the view taken by the High Court that the responsibility for finding a suitable site was of the appellant, and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r's case have set any controversy in this respect at rest, so that it is well settled that as the State has the exclusive right and privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor, it has the power to hold a public auction for the grant of such a right or privilege and to accept the payment of a sum therefor. It was therefore 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 the exclusive privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. As has been stated, Group 'B' appeals relate to the claim for reduction of the licence fees for the liquor shops concerned. It has been argued by counsel for the appellants that as the Collector did not discharge his duty under the instructions contained in paragraph 130 read with paragraph 93 of the Regulations, the Board acted arbitrarily in refusing the order reduction of the amounts of the fees which were the subject-matter of the demands under challenge. It has been urged that the bids were highly speculative and should have been reduced. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at power, if it thinks fit , to order a reduction of the amount of fees payable in respect of a licence, during the unexpired portion of the grant which is not the case of the appellants. In fact all that has been argued on behalf of the appellants is that as the instructions contained in the note appended to paragraph 130 of the Regulations have not been complied with, their legal right to claim the benefit of the note has wrongly been denied to them. The note reads as follows,- Note-ordinarily it is not the policy of Government to allow reduction in excise settlements. The licensees to a large extent, have only themselves to thank if they exceed in their bidding the figure which should return them a reasonable profit under normal conditions, and they are not therefore entitled to any reduction of fees as of right. The observance of this principle is the more important because it must be remembered that each remission is likely to aggravate the evil and encourage speculative bidding in the hope that should the speculation turn out a failure, Government will not insist on full payment. A remission should not be granted merely because working at a dead loss has -. been actual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
