IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9922 of 2008 CHITRANJAN PRASAD VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Junior Counsel to Advocate General ---------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 4th September, 2008. We heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Although the government counsel sought to urge that no separate show-cause was necessary for forfeiture of the security deposit as this was merely an order consequent upon the cancellation of the licence, but confronted with the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Qudrat Ali v. State of Bihar & Ors., A.I.R. 1973 Patna 111, the government counsel submitted that matter may be sent back to the Collector for consideration of the matter regarding forfeiture of the security deposit afresh after giving notice to the present petitioner. In Qudrat Ali v. the State of Bihar & Ors., the Division Bench of this Court considered the matter thus: - “12. Lastly it was contended that in any event the order of the learned Collector for the forfeiture of the security deposit amounting to Rs.6,400/- without a notice to show cause and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard on the question of forfeiture - 2 - is bad and must be struck down. The relevant provision about the forfeiture of the security deposit is Section 42(3) of the Act and it runs as follows: - “(3). The holder of a licence, permit or pass shall not be entitled to any compensation for its cancellation or suspension under this section, or to the refund of any fee paid or deposit made in respect thereof.” It is admitted that the petitioner did not get a notice for the proposed forfeiture of the security deposit, but it has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, as I have stated before, that no separate show cause is necessary for an action under Section 42(3) of the Act and this is merely an order consequent upon the cancellation of the licence. I do not feel persuaded to accept this contention. In my view if the petitioner is not entitled to a refund of the security deposit in respect of the licence, he is surely entitled to a notice when an order to that effect is proposed. It may, however, be that the petitioner may not have yet claimed the refund of his deposit and the order of forfeiture of the security deposit has been passed prematurely. From the wording of sub- section (3), it is evident that the question of not refunding the deposit may arise when there is a claim for the refund and the order of forfeiture along with the order of cancellation, as in this case, may not be tenable in law.” 3. The case in hand is identical to that of Qudrat Ali and in view of the statement of the government counsel, for consideration of the matter afresh by the Collector, Gaya after giving notice to the petitioner, we are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: - (i) The order dated 26th June, 2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Gaya is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Collector, Gaya or concerned authority shall be at liberty to give fresh notice to the petitioner proposing forfeiture of the security deposit and pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner. - 3 - 4. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-