The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recommendations for an additional excise licence must meet the requirements of Rule 45 of the Bihar Excise Rules 1951, which regulate the number of licences granted for any local area based on the needs of the people and the demand for the excisable article.

1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a writ, order and direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 19-6-2002/21-6-2002 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 57/2002, the order dated 18-3-2002 passed by the Excise Commissioner in Case No. 16/2002 and the order No. 1180 dated 27-3-2002 under which the Collector/District Magistrate, Begusarai was informed by the Secretary to the Excise Commissioner that an additional licence for IMFL (wholesale) has been sanctioned for Begusarai.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioners husband late Anil Kumar Gupta obtained a wholesale licence to deal in foreign liquor in the year 1984. After the death of the husband, the petitioner obtained the said licence and thereafter continued to hold the same for these years. According to the petitioner, the Excise Superintendent. Begusarai prepared a list of different categories of excise licence to be settled and sent a proposal to the Collector, Begusarai for the year 2002-2003. The Collector, Begusarai approved the aforesaid list prepared by the Excise Superintendent and sent the same on 8-1-2002 to the Excise Commissioner, for obtaining his sanction. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar vide his letter No. 360 dated 23-1-2002 sanctioned and approved grant of one licence for wholesale trade of India made foreign liquor and 28 foreign liquor retail shops for Begusarai District. The petitioner says that after being satisfied that there would be only one sanctioned wholesale licence for Begusarai in accordance with the directions issued by the authorities, she deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 and obtained the licence for the wholesale business. It is the case of the petitioner that after obtaining the licence she invested a huge amount to cater to the needs of consumers of foreign liquor and made number of commitments and contracts with different companies. The petitioner says that one Shiv Kumar Bhagat, respondent No. 6 approached the Collector for granting one additional wholesale licence. The Collector thereafter wrote a letter to the Excise Commissioner for sanction of one additional foreign liquor wholesale shop to be allotted in favour of said Shiv Kumar Bhagat under his letter No. 55 dated 22-1-2002. The Excise Commissioner after receipt of the said letter did not concede to the request made by the Collector and under his letter dated 6-2-2002 informed the Collector that the recommendation could not be made for a particular person but the recommendation could be made for sanctioning of one additional wholesale licence looking to the demand and need of the public. The petitioner says that said Shiv Kumar Bhagat is already having three liquor wholesale shops - two in Patna and one in Purnea. It is contended that said Shiv Kumar Bhagat exercised tremendous pressures - political and otherwise on the Collector, Begusarai and the Collector after refusal of his first recommendation sent yet another letter on 13-2-2001 making a recommendation that one additional wholesale shop licence be granted. According to the petitioner, such a recommendation could not be made, therefore, he appeared before the Excise Commissioner and objected to the grant of the additional licence.

3. The submission of the petitioner is that the Excise Commissioner sanctioned additional wholesale licence without considering the objections of the petitioner on the surmises that there had been increasing consumption of foreign liquor in the District and by his order dated 18-3-2002 sanctioned the additional licence. The petitioner wants to say that on number of earlier occasions the applications for additional licences were rejected observing that the present petitioner was working properly, nobody was having any complaint and the petitioner could fulfil the need of the shopkeepers. In support of this submission the petitioner has filed certain certificates and the inter-departmental communications. The petitioner says