The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents were liable to refund the license fee and the differential amount for the period of unlawful and illegal closure, as the repeated sealing and closure of the licensed premises of the petitioners were wholly without any authority in law.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

These four writ applications have been preferred for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund to the petitioner(s) the proportionate amount of license fee calculated at the rate of Re. 1.00 L.P. Litre on the Minimum Guarantee Quantity (in short the ‘MGQ’) of country liquor. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to pay the differential amount calculated on the MGQ of country liquor for the different periods during which the petitioner (claims) to have suffered unlawful closure of its/their manufacturing and bottling plant. Since the issues involved in all the four cases are common and based on identical contentions of the parties, as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner(s) and consented on behalf of the State, all the writ applications have been heard together for the purpose of disposal.

2. Before we proceed to consider the grievances of the petitioner(s), it would be just and proper to take note of the individual facts of the four writ applications herein.

(1) C.W.J.C. No. 8511/2016

3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to a tender notice dated 31st January 2014 inviting applications for grant of exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquors in PET bottles published by the Department of Excise and Prohibition, Govt. of Bihar, the petitioner participated in the tender for award of the exclusive privilege and after undergoing of the process of the tender the petitioner was awarded exclusive privilege by order dated 04.03.2014 for Zone-11 constituting the districts of Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Sheohar for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019 at the rate of Rs. 4.07 per 200 ML PET bottles. In terms of clause 4 of the letter of grant, petitioner became liable for payment of license fee and differential amount on the entire MGQ of Zone-11. Further the petitioner was required to establish PET bottles manufacturing plant at Muzaffarpur with the effective date for start of production of country liquor in PET bottles from 01.02.2015.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, as per the requirement of tender notice and the order of grant, established a manufacturing plant but on 13.12.2015 vide annexure-4 to the writ application, the Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur sealed the manufacturing premises of the petitioner on the allegation of non-supply of country liquor as per demand. It is stated that the license of the petitioner was neither suspended nor cancelled.

5. The petitioner challenged the action of the Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur in C.W.J.C. No. 1364/2016 before this court. The writ application was filed on 11th January 2016 and on urgent motion the matter was fixed on 20th January 2016. The case was finally heard on 25th of January 2016 by Hon’ble Division Bench of this court and after hearing the court was pleased to pass final order quashing the order dated 13th December 2015, holding that the sealing of the premises was without authority of law as no proceeding was drawn against the petitioner before passing of the impugned order dated 13.12.2015. The consequential order was issued by this court to unseal forthwith the premises and the petitioner was allowed to carry on his business. A copy of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1364/2016 has been brought on the record by way of Annexure-8 to the writ application.

6. It is stated that on 25th January 2016 itself at 5.00 p.m. the petitioner received a registered letter issued under the signature of the Excise Commissioner which was dated 20th January 2016 by which petitioner was informed that in view of the earlier irregularities of manufacture of substandard liquor, for which penalty had already been imposed by order dated 07.08.2015 and 24.11.2015 under Section 42(g)(h)(ii) of the Excise Act, the license of the petitioner has been suspended for a period of 90 days. It is submitted that the Excise Commissioner was totally aware of the proceedings initiated by the