JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 22nd January, 2015 passed in W.P. (C) Nos. 6141 of 2014, 6129 of 2014, W.P. (C) No. 6130 of 2014 and 2nd March, 2015 passed in W.P. (C) No. 97 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder the writ petitions have been dismissed refusing to interfere with the order as contained in memos dated 20th October, 2014 and 13th November, 2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, whereby and whereunder, the liability has been casted upon the appellants for deposit of amount of Rs. 1,25,52,242.04/- and Rs. 1,16,36,382.06/- (L.P.A. No. 133 of 2015); Rs. 1,48,13,594.28/- (L.P.A. No. 134 of 2015); Rs. 1,31,47,924.32 (L.P.A. No. 135 of 2015); Rs. 10,02,837.96 (L.P.A. No. 346 of 2015).

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the present appeal which requires to be enumerated, reads hereunder as.

3. The respondents issued a tender notice dated 22nd February, 2011 inviting application for grant of exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquor to the retail licensees/Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited for the period 1st April, 2011 to 31st March, 2014.

4. In pursuance to the aforesaid N.I.T., the writ-petitioner(s) and others submitted their tenders. In the financial bid, the tenderers including the writ-petitioner(s) quoted their rates keeping in mind the rate of rectified spirit in the month of March, 2011 which was at the rate of Rs. 26.98 per bulk litre. However, the decision with regard to finalization and award of exclusive privilege was unduly delayed for over a year on account of pending litigation before this Court challenging the NIT. The writ petition(s) was ultimately dismissed vide judgment dated 3rd April, 2012 passed in L.P.A. No. 309 of 2011, whereby the writ-petitioners were allotted different zone for manufacture and supply of country liquor by order dated 28th April, 2012 for the period from 1st July, 2012 to 31st March, 2014. Consequential license was also issued to the writ petitioner in Form prescribed under the act.

5. The rates so determined by the Board of Revenue were incorporated in the Letter of Grant issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner believed that since the rates have been finalized more than one year after the rates were quoted, the rates have proportionally been determined in view of the enhanced price of rectified spirit and other input cost without taking into account the proposed cost of hologram as the government had not decided to affix hologram on country liquor bottles/sachets.

6. After expiry of the period of grant, without any show cause notice, writ-petitioners were served with the demand notice dated 20th October, 2014 and 13th November, 2014 directing them to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,25,52,242.04/- and Rs. 1,16,36,382.06/-; Rs. 1,48,13,594.28/-; 1,31,47,924.32/- and; Rs. 10,02,837.96/- allegedly to be recovered by the writ-petitioners under the head of hologram item at the rate of Rs. 0.18 paise on country liquor supplied to the Corporation and to the retail licensees in different Zone failing which the Bank guarantee furnished by the writ-petitioners shall be revoked.

7. The writ-petitioners immediately responded to the aforesaid demand notice vide its letter dated 27th October, 2014 stating that the said demand notice has been issued without initiating any proceeding and is thus violative of principles of natural justice. The writ petitioners, accordingly, requested that the demand notice may be recalled and a proper proceeding in accordance with law be initiated.

8. It is the case of the writ-petitioners that the aforesaid notice inviting tender as appended as Annexure-1 contains the conditions including the condition as under the Clause which is relevant for the purpose of consideration of the issue of the lis. The condition stipulated under Clause provides that specification of the bottles will be determined on the basis of Jh