IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13588 of 2008 M/S K.D.LIQUOR & FERTILIZER (P) LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, 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 09th September, 2008 The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents be directed to revise the sale price of country liquor to be sold by the petitioner to Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited (For short, ‘Corportion’) and also for direction to the respondents to compensate the petitioner in the sum of Rs.1,17,32,200/-. 2. The revision of sale price of the country liquor to be sold by the petitioner to the Corporation is sought on the ground that the respondents failed to control and ensure supply of rectified spirit at the notified rates to the petitioner. The compensation of Rs.1,17,32,200/- is sought due to enhancement in the price of rectified spirit, which the petitioner has to purchase from place outside Bihar. 3. We are afraid, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner - 2 - cannot be granted in high prerogative jurisdiction. As to what should be the sale price of the country liquor to be sold by the petitioner to the Corporation is a matter of commercial contract. If for any reason, the price of rectified spirit has increased after the contract was entered into between the petitioner and the state government, it is for the parties to the contract to negotiate and not for the court to ask one of the parties to modify and revise the sale price. Similarly, if after the petitioner had entered into the contract with the government for supply of country liquor to the Corporation, due to increase in the price of rectified spirit, the commercial interest of the petitioner has suffered, the petitioner has to pursue the ordinary civil remedy available under law. 4. In our considered view, the jurisdiction of this court by filing this writ petition has been abused. We initially thought of imposing cost upon the petitioner for abuse of the process of the court, but since notice has not been issued to the respondents and the government counsel is present because of the service of the copy of the writ petition, we refrain from imposing any cost. 5. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil