IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14782 of 2010 JAI PRAKASH ROY S/O RAJDEO RAI R/O MOHALLA- RAM BHADRA, HAJIPUR, P.S. NAGAR HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI, HAJIPUR 4. THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, VAISHALI …… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Mrs Parul Ranjan, Advocate For the State :- A.C. to A.G. 4/- 14.02.2011 The petitioner was issued a licence for running liquor shop on the minimum guaranteed quota provisionally up to 7.6.2010 as may appear from Annexure-7 dated 9.4.2010. The reason for issuance of licence provisionally was that the premise which was obtained by the petitioner for carrying out his business in liquor was under dispute. The order of issuance of licence was itself indicating that if the petitioner in the meantime could acquire another undisputed premise for running the business then the same was to be considered again for granting/ cancellation of licence issued to him. It appears that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of issuance of provisional licence which resulted into issuance of a notice to him in the form of Annexure-8 which is dated 5.6.2010. The reason for issuance of notice Annexure-8 was that neither the petitioner had deposited the licence fee on monthly basis nor had lifted the liquor from the month of May of the minimum guaranteed quota and thereby had caused loss of 2 revenue. Besides, it was also pointed out to him through the same notice, while issuing notice to show cause, that he had not till that day placed information to the satisfaction of the Collector, Vaishali regarding having acquired undisputed business premises. Seven days time was granted to the petitioner through notice Annexure-8 dated 5.6.2010 to show cause, else the licence issued to him was to be deemed to stand cancelled in terms of Section 42 of the Excise Act. These facts do not appear disputed. What appears further from the records presented before us is that the petitioner does not appear placing any show cause before the Collector and that resulted in automatic cancellation of his licence in terms of Annexure-8 and forfeiture of the deposit which had been made by him as a condition precedent for issuance of licence. As regards order of forfeiture, the petitioner appears making a prayer before the Collector for its withdrawal. He appears taking up the relevant proceeding up to the Board of Revenue, Bihar which in Revision Case No. 14 of 2010 by order passed on 28.7.2010 upheld the order of the Collector for forfeiture and cancellation of licence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the connected notice and some of the documents which have been annexed with the present petition showing that the premise which was pointed out by him as a place of business for obtaining the licence, was never a disputed premise. But, we find that it has repeatedly been noted by the 3 authorities even without holding an enquiry that the premise was disputed and it was not conducive for carrying on the business in liquor and as such licence in respect of particular disputed premise could not be allowed to continue. This finding was recorded up to the Board of Revenue. We also find sufficient basis in the above behalf from the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar that proper notice was again issued to the petitioner on 3rd April, 2010 in the form of Annexure-A requesting him to place on record the dispute free premise so that his licence could be continued. This notice was got received by the landlord Surendra Prasad on behalf of the present petitioner as the same was served at the spot on the business premise of the petitioner. Besides, the premises was disputed also appears a position accepted by the petitioner, as the very licence was issued to him provisionally as the site of proposed making of liquor by the petitioner was undisputedly not dispute free. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no notice was given to the petitioner before his licence was cancelled. We find from the notice contained in Annexure-D which is dated 5.6.2010 that a proper notice with all details on which licence had been suspended, which ultimately could be the basis of the impugned notice on cancellation was well within the knowledge of the petitioner who had also received one copy of the notice dated 16.6.2010, but there was no reply filed by him. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had himself met the Collector for seeking extension of time for filing his reply to the show cause, but we do not find anything on record so as to justifying the above submission. On account of no cause being shown by the petitioner in response to the notice Annexure-D, the ultimate order was issued through Annexure-E/1 which was the final order communicating to the petitioner about the cancellation of his licence as also an intimation to the Collector to settle the shop to another settlee. The very notice issued on 5.6.2010 indicates violation of the condition of Section 42 of the Excise Act which ultimately resulted into forfeiture and cancellation both as could be apparent from that particular provision of law. We find that in spite of having been served with the notice, reply to the same on cancellation of his licence, the petitioner was keeping mum for ten days and ultimately the order cancelling the licence was passed on 16.6.2010. In the above view of the matter, we find that there was substantial compliance to the provisions of law for cancellation of the licence which was issued to the petitioner and as such there does not appear any merit in the present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was raising before us the issuance of notice for forfeiture of the security deposit by the petitioner as well. We note hat if there is any reason for not forfeiting the deposit of the petitioner, that issue 5 could be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law on due representation being made by the petitioner in that behalf without being prejudiced by the order of the Court. With the above observation this application stands dismissed. Ashwini/- ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)