A licence for retail sale of excisable articles is to be granted for one year corresponding to the financial year of the Government and the District Excise Officer is competent to cancel the licence as he is designated as the licensing authority.

1. 1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Amar Kumar & Partners for quashing the impugned order of the District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar dated 15.2.79 (Ex.2), order of the Excise Commissioner dated 23.2.1980 (Ex.3) and the order dated 31.8.1982 (Ex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. It has been prayed that the respondents No.2 to 4 may be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 9,95,000/- being the amount of the proportionate exclusive privilege for three months on account of the premature termination of their licence.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that a licence of exclusive privilege for sale of country liquor of the group of country liquor shops numbering 10 was granted to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 43,13,800/- from 3.5.78 to 31.5.79 vide Ex.1. It is alleged that the licence was for the duration of 13 months and the said amount was to be deposited in 13 equal instalments of Rs. 3,31,830/-. It is also alleged that though the petitioner had to pay the security amount of Rs. 2,38,415/- which they paid but subsequently respondent No.3 Excise Commissioner forced the petitioner to make up the security amount to the tune of Rs. 4,49,415/- which was also deposited. The petitioner further alleged that he paid monthly instalments without any default but according to respondent No.3 the monthly instalment was to the tune of Rs. 3,94,571.44 and, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground of default vide order dated 15.2.79(Ex.2) and it was ordered that the security amount of Rs. 4,49,415/- as well as some other amounts paid subsequently be also adjusted towards the amount of the exclusive privilege. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 but the same was rejected vide order dated 23.2.1980(Ex.3). Being aggrieved with the order of Excise Commissioner, the respondent No.2, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue but that too was dismissed by the order dated 31.8.1982 (Ex.4). Hence, this writ petition.

3. This writ petition is pending since 8.2.1983. While admitting the petition on 18.2.1983, this Court restrained respondents No.2 and 3 from recovering by amount from the petitioner. Vide order dated 15.5.1984, the ad-interim order dated 18.2.83 was recalled and the respondents were directed to serve a demand notice if according to them any amount is outstanding against the petitioner, before taking any coercive measures. Respondents No.2 to 4 filed reply stating that licence has to be granted for the period commencing from 1st April and ending on 31st March or for the period which is to end on 31st March of the next year and no licence for sale of country liquor on exclusive privilege basis for 13 months is granted and the petitioner submitted his auction form for the year 1978-79 which means that the period was to end at the end of financial year i.e. 31.3.1979. The respondents have also filed Annexure/1, a photostat copy of the licence issued to the petitioner. It has been stated that the amount of Rs. 43.13.800/- was for the period of 3.5.1978 to 31.3.79 and not up to the period 31.5.79 as stated by the petitioner. It has been stated that the averment made by the petitioner that he was forced to make the security amount to the tune of Rs. 4,49,413.90 is wrong for the reason that as per the condition of the auction the petitioner was required to deposit the total amount of security of Rs. 4,72,830/- which was to be calculated @ 1.⅕% of the amount of monthly instalment of exclusive privilege money and as after deposit of the amount of Rs. 2,38,415/- as security, the petitioner did not make payment of balance amount of security and, therefore, a notice under the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and the rules made thereunder was issued asking the petitioner to pay or deposit the balance security amount. It has also been stated that the petitioner did not make payment of the total amou