IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18830 of 2010 1. ARUN KUMAR son of Sri .Ram Lakhan Roy, resident of Juma Masjid Chowk,Brahman Toli, P.S. Nagar, District Muzaffarpur 2 Munna Roy son of Sri Lall Babu Roy, resident of Dobhapokhar Suttapatti, P.S. Nagar, District Muzaffarpur 3. Shyam Chaudhary son of late Ram Chanra Choudhary, resident of Brahampura Nilkanth Chowk, P.S.Brahmpura,District Muzaffarpur 4. Ram Bali Roy son of Sri Baijnath Roy, resident of Kolhua, Pagampur, P.S.Ahiyapur,District Muzaffarpur … … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar 3. The Collector, Muzaffarpur 4. The Excise Superintendent, Muzaffarpur … … Respondents. For the petitioners: Shri Ram Badan Mahto, Adv. For the State: Shri R.B.Mahto, A.G. ----------- 3. 11.2.2011 Heard Shri Ram Badan Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Ram Balak Mahto, Advocate General, on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by issuance of Annexure-1, which is a notice contained in memo no. 2012 dated 28.9.2010 issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur, asking the petitioners to deposit Rs. 2,25,000/- as difference of licence fee which was required to be paid by each of the petitioners for running their individual bear Bars. We are not required to go into the merits of the matters, in view of the fact that the Collector of different Districts, had, after filing of such petitions, sought guidelines from the Government and after due consideration of the issue the Government appears issuing its resolution, vide memo no. 4084 2 dated 3.12.2010. The relevant part of the resolution is as under: ÞlE;d~ fopkjksijkar foHkkx ds }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ch;j&ckj ,oa Hkkjr fufeZRr fons”kh “kjkc dh cksVfyax ds ftu vuqKfIr/kkjdksa us vuqKfIr “kqYd ds iqujh{k.k ds iwoZ okf’kZd vuqKfIr “kqYd tek djkdj vuqKfIr;ksa dh Lohd`fr ,oa mlds uohdj.k izkIr fd;s gS muls iqujhf{kr nj ds vuqlkj Hkwry{kh izHkko ls vuqKfIr”kqYd olwyuh; ugha gS fdUrq “kqYd iqujh{k.k ds ckn ubZ vuqKfIr;ksa dh Lohd`fr gksus vFkok iqjkuh vuqKfIr;ksa ds uohdj.k gksus dh fLFkfr esa bl rjg ds vuqKfIr/kkjdksa ls iqujhf{kr njksa ij vuqKfIr”kqYd olwyuh; gksaxsAÞ In the light of the above, one could hardly have any doubt that notice contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is of any substance and meaning as the licence fee as was directed by Annexure 1 has not to be paid. The notification has also been published in the Gazette. The petitioners could never be asked to pay licence fee as was directed to be paid by Annexure 1. The notification which has been published in the Gazette shall apply to the licenses of the petitioners from the date of issue of the same in the Gazette and to the subsequent date We, accordingly, dispose of the present writ application. Kanth ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)