1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 210 of 2001 SURAJ PRAKASH & ORS V/S STATE & ANR Mr. NM LODHA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. MR SINGHVI, for the respondent Date of Order : 17.11.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.2.2001 dismissing the writ petition in limine by passing following order:- “Two prayers have been made in this petition (i) that respondents may kindly be directed not to charge licence fee for 12 days i.e. from 1.4.199 to 12.4.1999 & (ii) suitable rebate in the yearly licence fee may be given for the year 1999-2000. For this the petitioner had better, alternative remedy somewhere else and not by way of this petition. Hence dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.” The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a look at Annexure-7 and 8 collectively shows that licence was issued to the petitioner on 13.4.1999 only. The licence covers the period 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 and 2000-2001 but since it was issued on 13.4.1999 only, licence fee could not be recovered from him for the entire period, and he is entitled to get pro rata relief. 2 No reply was filed in the Single Bench. Obviously, because the writ petition was dismissed in limine, and significantly despite the appeal remaining pending for the last more than 8 years, no reply has been filed here as well. Today we pointedly put to the learned counsel for the respondent as to what is the other alternative remedy available to the petitioner, as comprehended by the impugned order, whereupon learned counsel relied upon the provisions of Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The provisions of Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act reads as under:- “9-A. Appeals and revision-(1) An appeal shall lie- (a) to the Excise Commissioner from any order passed by an Excise officer under this Act, and (b) to the Divisional Commissioner of the area appointed under section 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Raj. Act 15 of 1956) from any order (in a matter arising from such area) passed by the Excise Commissioner under this Act otherwise than an appeal. Provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of payment of 75% of the amount of the demand created by the order appealed against. (2) Any appeal under sub-section (1) may be preferred at any time within sixty days from the date of the order complained of. (3) The decision of the Excise Commissioner or the Divisional Commissioner as the case may be, on such appeal shall, subject to the result of revision, if any, under sub- 3 section (4) be final. (4) The Divisional Commissioner may revise any order passed on appeal by the Excise Commissioner.” Even after reading the above provision again and again, learned counsel could not satisfy as to how the petitioner has any remedy available to him under Section 9A. In view of the above, we are constrained to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and since the matter has not been examined by the learned Single Judge on merits, the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition on merits. Since in this appeal interim stay was granted by the Division Bench on 12.3.2001 which was duly confirmed after hearing the parties on 18.9.2001, the said order shall continue to remain in force till the writ petition is decided on merits afresh. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/