IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3987 of 2010 1. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SRI SHUKHDEO RAI R/O MOHALLA- D/36 SAHDEO MAHTO MARG, SRIKRISHNAPURI, P.S. SRIKRISHNAPURI, DISTT.- PATNA ------------ Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT CUM EXCISE COMMISSIONER BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE PATNA----------Respondents. ----------- 2 09-03-2010 Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of certiorari and to quash order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in Case No.49 of 2009, whereby he has declined to entertain the appeal as appellant was not deposited the composition fee imposed by the Collector, Patna. Questioning correctness of the order it is submitted by Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner could not have dismissed the appeal without adverting on the merit of 2 the case on the ground that composition fee was not deposited. It is contended by him that under section 8 of Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (for brevity „the Act‟) there is no provision of such deposit. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the order passed by the Commissioner and to buttress the same he has referred to section 8 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act reads as under:- “Control, appeal and revision-(1)The Collector shall, in all proceedings under this Act, be subject to the control of the Excise Commissioner, and shall, in such matters as the State Government may direct, be subject also to the control of the Commissioner of the division. 2.Orders passed under this Act or under any rule made hereunder shall be appealable in such cases, to such authorities and under such procedure as may be prescribed by rule made under section 89, clause ©. 3.The Board may revise any order passed by a Collector, the Excise Commissioner or the Commissioner of a Division.” On a perusal of the same it is quite clear that there is no condition precedent stipulated in the provision for preferring an appeal. It is well settled in law that the 3 appeal is a creature of the statute and a party is bound by the statutory mandates. When no condition precedent has been provided by the legislature in filing the appeal, we could not impose the same. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner is axed and he is directed to deal with the appeal on merits within the parameters of Bihar Excise Act. In the result, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)