IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10967 of 2004 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Commissioner, Excise, Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Excise, Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Patna 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Patna ….Petitioners Versus 1. AJAY KUMAR son of Faudari Mahto, resident of Jagat Narayan Road, PS Kadamkuan, District Patna 2. Arjun Kumar Yadav son of late Damodar Prasad Yadav, residentof Babu Tola, Makhania Kuan, PS Pirbahore, District Patna 3. Dharmendra Kumar Singh son of Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Mohalla Chandmari Road, PS Kankarbagh, town and district Patna 4. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna….Respondents ----------- 06- 15.3.2010 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar II, learned Govt. Pleader no.19, for the petitioners. This writ petition is directed against the following orders, passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna:- (i) Order dated 3.12.2003, passed in Revision Application No.163 of 2003; and (ii) order dated 10.3.2004, passed in Board Case of the State Government. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Altogether 141 shops for retail vend of India Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), were operational in the township of Patna. In view of objections of the general public and/or loss of revenue, the State Government decided to abolish 15 shops. It was further decided that the loss incurred by the State Government on account of abolition of such 15 shops shall be distributed amongst the remaining 126 licensees 2 of IMFL shops for the period 2003-04. Licenses were issued to 126 persons as per the established procedure. They were granted license and the shops became operational. Thereafter they preferred the aforesaid Revision Case no.163 of 2003, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 3.12.2003, whereby the Board has held that distribution of losses of the State Government amongst 126 licensees was not as per the procedure prescribed by the Excise Commissioner. The revision application has, therefore, been allowed with the liberty to the State Government to re-calculate and re-distribute the losses amongst 126 shops as per the prescribed procedure and the observations made in the order. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The State of Bihar has neither placed before us the factual position nor the relevant circulars to discredit the impugned order. We are unmoved by the vague generalizations advanced before us by the learned Government Pleader which is wholly inadequate to set aside the impugned order. The contention advanced by the learned Govt. Pleader that the impugned order results in loss to the State Government is stated only to be rejected. The learned Member has not disagreed with the claim of the State Government to make good the losses, on account of abolition of the 15 shops, from 126 licensees. It has only changed the basis of distribution of loss. The learned Member has not derived a new 3 formula, but has only sought to apply the prescribed procedure. The amount recoverable as per the impugned order would be just the same. The issues are essentially one of facts. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, has, on consideration of the facts, and the relevant circulars of the State Government come to the conclusion indicated in his order. 4. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of absence of the respondents, we do not pass any order for costs. ( S K Katriar ) ( Mungeshwar Sahoo ) mrl