1. The petitioner in this case seeks a direction for refund of the amounts of security deposit and the licence fees paid by it for the grant of licences for manufacture and sale of country liquor in five of the six districts falling under Muzaffarpur zone for the year, 2001-02

2. The facts of the case are simple and can be briefly stated thus. The petitioner was granted by the State Govt, the exclusive privilege for manufacture and sale of country liquor in Muzaffarpur zone (comprising six districts) for a period of three years from 1999-2000 to 2001-02. The grant was made on the basis of the tender submitted by the petitioner in response to the tender notice published in the official gazette of 16.12.1998 (Annexure 14). Clause 2 (ka) of the tender notice required the tenderer to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs as security for each zone, refundable to the successful tenderer on the expiry of the settlement period. Clause 12 of the notice enumerated the documents required to be submitted along with the tender. These included, the Sales tax clearance certificate (SODHAN PRAMAN PATRA) to be issued by the competent sales-tax officer of the area where the tenderer had his regular business/ permanent address. The petitioner submitted its tender along with the required documents/certificates after depositing the security money and it received the grant from the Government.

3. Under the statutory scheme, following the grant of the exclusive privilege by the State Govt, the Dist. Magistrate of each of the districts falling under the zone would issue to the settlee annual licences on payment of requisite licence fees. The petitioner was, accordingly, given licences for the six districts falling under Muzaffarpur zone for the years, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The two years of the settlement period passed normally with no complaint of any breach of the terms and conditions of the grant by the State Government or the licences issued by the District Magistrates. Towards the end of March or the beginning of April, 2001, the petitioner was given licences for the last year of the settlement period (2001-02) in each of the six districts on payment of the annual licence fees. The amounts of licence fee for each of those districts and the challans by which the licence fees were deposited are stated in para 16 of the writ petition. Shortly after the licences for the year 2001-02 were issued, on 12.4.2001., the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hajipur Circle, Hajipur sent a letter to all the six Dist. Magistrates stating that he had received intimation from Patna City, West Circle that the petitioner had huge arrears of sales tax and hence, the No-dues certificate given to the petitioner under his office memo no. 140 dated 17.3.2001 was being cancelled. He also advised that in view of this development the licences issued to the petitioner should also be cancelled. On the basis of the letter of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hajipur all the six Dist. Magistrates cancelled the licences issued in the petitioners favour for the year, 2001-02.

4. Following the cancellation of the licence, the Dist. Magistrate, Muzaffarpur also refunded Rs. 600,011.00 deposited by the petitioner as licence fee for the year, 2001-02 vide his order, dated 22.10.2001 (Annexure 10). The petitioner made applications for refund of the licence fees before the five other Dist. Magistrates too but no order was passed on his claim for refund and he finally came to this court seeking appropriate directions to them.

5. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions it needs to be clarified that the petitioner is not making any grievance with regard to the decision to rescind the licences granted to him for the year, 2001-02. On this issue, the authorities appear to be on firm grounds as one of the terms of the licence plainly stipulates that no licence would be issued in favour of anyone against whom there are Govt, dues, of any kind. The real dispute is with reg