Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The petitioner, who has been a licensee of country liquor shop from the year 2003 to 2009, has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Excise Commissioner, U.P. whereby, security has been forfeited on the ground that the petitioner could not lift the country liquor in the month of March, 2009 to the extent of minimum guaranteed quantity (in short MGQ), provided by the authorities. The petitioner has also impugned the Rule 2 (c) and Rule 2 (o) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licences of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002 (in short as 2002 Rules), with a prayer to declare it ultra-vires.

2. The petitioner was excise licensee, granted license to sell country liquor in the year 2003-2004. The license was continued and extended upto the year 2008-2009. In lieu of license granted by the State, the petitioner furnished security money amounting to Rs. 5,22081/-. However, inspite of lapse of license tenure when the security money was not refunded, he moved an application dated 20.5.2009 followed by reminders dated 23.3.2010 and 15.4.2010 under the Right to Information Act that why the security money deposited by him with regard to country liquor shop has not been refunded.

3. In response to the application moved under Right to Information Act, 2005, the Public Relation Officer/District Excise Officer, Varanasi, by his letter dated 2.6.2010 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), informed that in view of the Circular dated 9.3.2009 of the Excise Commissioner, U.P., by the impugned letter dated 21.2.2010, issued by the Finance Controller, the security has been forfeited since the petitioner has not lifted the MGQ of the month of March,2009.

After receipt of letter dated 2.6.2010 (supra), being aggrieved with it, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 6359 (M/B) of 2010, which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 9.3.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to prefer the re-presentation to the Excise Commissioner U.P., who in turn, was directed to decide it in accordance with law by passing a reason order.

In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted fresh re-presentation to the respondent No. 2 on 23.7.2010 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), which has been decided by the impugned order dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), indicating therein that since the petitioner has not lifted MGQ in the month of March, 2009, the security of Rs. 5,22,081/- has been forfeited. It has been alleged that the District Excise Officer Varanasi has informed by letter dated 14.8.2010 that in the month of March, 2009 MGQ prescribed for the petitioner licensee, was 4187.50 bulk litres but the petitioner has lifted only 887.61 bulk litres. Hence in terms of MGQ, the petitioner has paid less license fee to the extent of Rs. 2,56,088.56 P.

4. While preferring the writ petition, it has been stated by the petitioner’s counsel that annual quota provided to the petitioner was 50,250 bulk litres and monthly quota was 4187.5 bulk litres. In support of the claim the petitioner filed pass book of the year 2008-2009 as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It has been submitted by the petitioner that In the month of March, 2009, the petitioner has lifted lesser liquor i.e., 887.61 bulk litres but in case entire liquor lifted by the petitioner in the financial year is taken into account, he had lifted the entire MGQ rather, more liquor than the quota allotted to him i.e., 50257.87 bulk litres. The pleading contained in para-10 of the writ petition is reproduced as under:

“10. That for the excise year 2008-09 the total quota of country liquor was fixed 50,250 bulk liters and monthly quota was also indicated 4,187.5 bulk liters. The petitioner has lifted the excess total quota of the country liquor i.e., 50,257.87 bulk liters from the month of April, 2008 to March, 2009. it is further submitted that mon