IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14129 of 2009 M/S WELCOME DISTILLERIES PVT.LTD., HEAD OFFICE AT SUPER MARKET, 2ND FLOOR, AGRASEN CHOWK, BILASPUR, FACTORY LOCATED AT CHHERKABANDHA, P.S. KOTA, DISTRICT-BILASPUR, CHATTISGARH, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ABHISHEK JAISWAL SON OF SRI HIRA LAL JAISWAL. -PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BIHAR, PATNA. -RESPONDENTS _______ For the Petitioner : M/s Y.V. Giri & Ashish Giri For Intervener : M/s Rajendra Pd. Singh & Nawal Kishore Singh For the State : M/s P.K. Shahi, Adv.General & Vikash Kumar 3 10.11.2009 Heard the parties. After hearing the arguments for some time, we wanted the State of Bihar to consider prayer made on behalf of the petitioner that it may be given an opportunity to operate the license on conditional basis for a period of two to three 2 months so that the petitioner may satisfy the authorities its commitment and capacity to manufacture and supply all the required quantity of country made liquor in sachet for the area of license. We were required to compare supply figures of other licensees and evaluate the reasons if the petitioner performed poorly in the month of July only or even in later months in the matter of supply, vis-à-vis other licensees / suppliers. It may be indicated by way of passing reference that from the charts annexed with the counter affidavit as well as with the rejoinder it was clear that other licensees operating their license in similar conditions have also defaulted and made short supply in the month of July and in many cases even in later months. We have been spared the trouble of going deeper into relevant facts and the concerned law on account of fair stand taken by the Advocate General upon the persuasion of the court that it was in the interest of the State that the petitioner, who is an entrepreneur belonging to outside of State of Bihar, may be given another fair opportunity to improve its performance and show its 3 commitment noticed above. We are of the view that it would be just fair and in the interest of all concerned that the order canceling the license of the petitioner be set aside conditionally so as to give the petitioner, as per its undertaking, a chance to operate the license for a further period of three months on trial basis and demonstrate to the State of Bihar and other respondents that it can meet the minimum requirement and will not lag behind the supply figures of other manufacturers given license for other districts of the State. It goes without saying that even during this trial period of three months the petitioner shall comply with all the terms and conditions of license and supply and if there be any violation requiring action as per law, the State will be at liberty to take action as per law against the petitioner for any such lapses. After the period of three months if the performance of the petitioner is found unsatisfactory during this period then the respondents will be again at liberty to proceed to take action against the petitioner for its lapses particularly for short supply of country made liquor. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that 4 there is a condition in Clause 18 that grant for rectified spirit for manufacture of country made liquor has to be obtained by the petitioner only from its own State, that is from Chhattishgarh. He submits that in another case this court has clarified that for good reasons the State can permit licensee like the petitioner to import rectified spirit from other neighbouring States also. He wants a direction from this Court that respondents should consider petitioner’s request also for importing rectified spirit from other State in case of need and if an application is filed for that purpose. We are aware of the order passed in the case of Umeri Distillery in CWJC no. 14372 of 2009 on 06th November, 2009 in which the aforesaid legal position was clarified by this Court. Hence, there is no difficulty in observing that aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has substance and the respondents shall keep in mind the observation of this court given in the aforesaid case whenever application is made by the petitioner for importing rectified spirit from another neighbouring State other than Chhattisgarh. It is clarified that we have quashed the order of 5 cancellation contained in Annexure-16 with conditions and stipulations, mentioned above. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) AAhmad