CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9195 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ****** Khursheed Alam, son of Abdul Baoor, resident of Parsagarh, P.O.- Parsagarh, P.S. Ekma, District- Saran, Chapra ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner of Excise, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Saran, Chapra. 4. The Superintendent of Excise, Saran, Chapra --- Respondents. ******* For The Petitioner :Mr. G.P. Bimal & Mr. S. Bharti, Advocates. For The Respondent : Mr. S.K.Jha, A.C. to AAG-7 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA S.K.Katriar,J. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.07.1999 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Collector-cum- District Magistrate of the district of Saran in Excise Case No. 1 of 1996 (Khurshid Alam Vrs. Excise Superintendent, Saran, Chapra), whereby he has declined to grant remission of the licence fee for the period 09.09.1985 to 03.10.1985, and 04.11.1985 to 25.11.1985. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was the holder of excise licence under the provisions of Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for retail vend of country liquor. During the periods in question, the State Government 2 had undertaken upon itself to supply country liquor to the licensees for retail vend of the same. During the periods in question, the State Government was unable to supply country liquor to a large number of such licensees including the petitioner. The matter ultimately reached the Board of Revenue at the instance of various licensees. By a detailed, reasoned order dated 29.09.1986 (Annexure-1-A), the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, allowed the revision application in Case No. 604 of 1985 (Gulam Shakir Vrs. The Department of Excise), at the instance of a similarly circumstanced person, wherein it was held that the State Government was liable to refund the licence fee for the period(s) country liquor was not supplied to them, and shall be adjusted against the future dues of that petitioner. The petitioner’s revision application was registered as Revision Case No. 531 of 1985 (Khurshid Alam Vrs. The Department of Excise & Ors.), was taken up analogously with the said Rev. Case no. 604 of 1985, and was allowed by order dated 29.09.1986 (Annexure-1, in terms of the said order dated 29.09.1986 (Annexure-1A, passed in Revision Case No. 604 of 1985). 2.1 It appears that, in the meanwhile, another licensee, perhaps a similarly circumstanced person, had approached this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1997 (Vikash Prasad Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.), which was rejected by order dated 17.07.1997 (Annexure-A to the counter- 3 affidavit), and it was held that he was not entitled to refund of the licence fee for the period the State Government was unable to supply country liquor. It further appears that the learned Collector has, on the strength of the order of this Court, declined to adjust the licence fee on pro- rata basis for the periods in question to the petitioner, leading to the aforesaid Excise Case No. 1 of 1996. The petitioner’s application was rejected by the impugned order mainly on the ground that the orders of the learned Board of Revenue, marked Annexure-1 and 1/A, have lost its meaning and force in view of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1997, dated 17.07.1997. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 19.07.1999 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of State of West Bengal Vrs. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee and others, reported in A.I.R. 1966 SC 1061 (Para-14). 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The learned Collector has failed to realize that the petitioner’s own case was allowed by order dated 29.09.1986 (Annexure-1), in terms of the detailed discussion and the reasons assigned in the order dated 29.09.1986 (Annexure-1/A). These two orders have to be read together, which were never challenged and attained finality. We think that the two orders attained finality, not having been challenged by the parties, the order of this 4 Court of 17.09.1997, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1997, could not have been applied to the petitioner’s case, having been passed in the case of a different person. There appears to be an illegality apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 19.07.1999 (Annexure-3). The same is hereby set aside, and we direct the learned Collector to follow the order dated 29.09.1986 (Annexure-1), passed in Revision Case No. 531 of 1985, read with the order dated 29.09.1986, passed in Revision Case No. 604 of 1985. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal V. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee and others (Supra), paragraph 14 of which is relevant for the present case which fully supports the petitioner’s case, and is reproduced herein below:- “Before proceeding with these arguments in detail, we can dispose of second contention very shortly. This argument proceeds on a fundamental misconception, as it seeks to equate an incorrect decision with a decision rendered without jurisdiction. A wrong decision by a court having jurisdiction is as much binding between the parties as a right one and may be superseded only by appeals to higher tribunals or other procedure like review which the law provides. The learned Judges of the High Court who rendered the decision on 4-4-1952 had ample jurisdiction to decide the case and the fact that their decision was on the merits erroneous as 5 seen from the later judgment of this Court, does not render it any the less final and binding between the parties before the Court. There is, thus, no substance in this connection. The decision of the High Court dated 4-4-1952 bound the parties and its legal effect remained the same whether the reasons for the decision be sound or not.” 5. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order 19.07.1999 (Annexure-3), is hereby set aside. The learned Collector-cum- District Magistrate of the district of Saran, Chapra, is hereby directed to refund the licence fee on pro rata basis for the period 09.09.1985 to 03.10.1985, and 04.11.1985 to 25.11.1985, along with the interest @ 12% from the date(s) of deposit(s) till the date of adjustment of the dues against the petitioner, if not already refunded or adjusted. Patna High Court,Patna Dated 18th November, 2010 BTiwary(NAFR) (S. K. Katriar,J.) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)