IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1480 of 2011 ==================================================== Dilip Roy @ Dilip Rai, Son of Sri Gajadhar Rai, resident of Village- Salempur, P.S. Amarpur, District-Banka. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Registration, excise and Prohibition Department, Patna. 2. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. …. …. Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate with Mr. Rajkumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Ajeet Kumar, A.C. to A.G. ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 11.4.2011. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Dilip Roy @ Dilip Rai, a resident of village-Salempur, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka to challenge the decision dated 4th October 2010 of the Commissioner of Excise on representation made by the petitioner in respect of grant of privilege/special licence for liquor shop. According to the petitioner the policy decision of the State is not beneficial to the State. The State can earn higher revenue if the policy suggested by the writ petitioner is accepted. The petitioner had earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 10426 of 2009 in the same subject matter in public interest. The petition was rejected on 25th August 2009. The Bench of this Court held, “the - 2 - question as to whether it will be beneficial for the State, is a matter to be decided by State Government and the High Court is not expected to thwart such discretion.” While disposing of the writ petition in the above manner, the Bench reserved liberty to the writ petitioner to make representation to the respondents. Pursuant to the said liberty petitioner made a representation on 25th September 2009; that has been rejected by the Commissioner of Excise under the impugned order dated 4th October 2010. Learned Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh has appeared for the writ petitioner. He admits that the petitioner is not personally interested in grant of licence to run the liquor shop of whatever nature. He is, however, concerned about the public revenue. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not filed in public interest as a petition in the public interest has already been once rejected by this court as recorded hereinabove. The petitioner, not being an aggrieved person, has no locus standi to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present nature. For the aforesaid reason, the petition is summarily rejected. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)