By Court.--The common controversy, in this batch of the writ petitions, lies in different perception and interpretation of Clause 5 of the New Excise Policy issued by 'Excise Department, Government of Jharkhand, published in the official gazette dated 24th February, 2004 (Annexure1): All the writ petitions were tagged and heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The brief fact giving rise to the batch of the cases is that the State of Jharkhand issued an amended excise policy by gazette notification dated 24th February, 2004 whereby a new excise policy for settlement of retail liquor shops was brought into effect from the financial year 2004-05. Prior to the said notification, excise "retail shops were used to be settled individually for one year. But in the amended policy, excise retail shops of country spirit and country spiced spirit are to be settled in Group-I, whereas retail Indian Foreign Made Liquor Shops are to be settled in Group-II for a block period of three years. Clause 5 of the said notification provides 10% increase in the licence fee in second and third year of the settlement.

3. In accordance with the said policy, sale notification was published inviting applications for settlement of retail liquor Shops. The shops were settled in the names of firms/persons, who are the private respondents in these writ petitions, on various dates. They deposited licence fees.

4. The controversy between the parties is regarding date of implementation of Clause 5 i.e. the date of 10% increase in the licence fee in second and third year of settlement, as provided in. Clause 5 of the said notification, which reads as follows:

"5. BANDOVASTI TIN VARSH KI BLOK AWADHI KE LIYE KI JAYEGI. BANDOVASTI KE DUSRE EVAM TISRE VARSH ME PRATYEK BAR DAS PRATISHAT KI VRIDHI PRATIVARSH NILAMI RASHI ME KI JAYEGI."

5. According to the State, the increased licence fee is chargeable with effect from the commencement of the succeeding financial year after the settlement, irrespective of the date of settlement. The respondents-settles claimed that since the settlement was made after the commencement of the financial year in the midst of the year or at the fag end of the financial year, the increased licence fee is chargeable after expiry of 12 calendar months i.e. after a year from the date of settlement.

6. As per the term of agreement, any dispute arising between the parties is to be referred to and decided by the Member, Board of Revenue.

7. Accordingly, the said dispute was referred to the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand. He heard the parties and answered the reference by the impugned order dated 17th July, 2006, contained in Annexure-2, in favour of the respondents settles. He held that 'year' as used in the notification and Form 127 and the similar Forms specifying .10% enhancement in fees in the 2nd and 3rd year means year beginning after expiry of 12 and 24 British Calendar months from the date of initial settlement and the increased licence fee is chargeable after 12 and 24 months of the date of settlement.

8. Aggrieved by the said interpretation and the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, the State has filed these writ petitions.

9. It has been contended on behalf of the State-petitioner that the Member Board of Revenue has erroneously interpreted the word 'year' according to the British Calendar, though in Clause 8 of the said notification, it has been clearly provided that the amended provision would be made effective from the financial year 2004-05.

10. Mr. L.K. Lal, learned S.C. (L&C), appearing on behalf of the State-petitioner in all the cases, submitted that the interpretation of the word 'year' appearing in Clause 5 of the said gazette notification is not only inconsistent with Clause 8 thereof, rather the same is also contrary to Rule 44 of the Bihar Excise Rules. He submitted that Rule 44 provides that licences for the wholesale or retail vend of excisable articles may be granted for one year from the 1st