IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.217 of 2008 Digvijay Kumar, S/o Sri Tripurari Sharan Sah, R/o Village- Amnour, P.S.-Amnour, District- Saran (Chapra). …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Danapur Cantonment Board through its Member Secretary –cum- Chief Executive Officer, District-Patna. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Danapur Cantonment Board, Danapur, District-Patna. 4. Commanding Officer, Danapur Cantonment-cum-the President, Danapur Cantonment Area, District-Patna. 5. District Magistrate cum Member, Danapur Cantonment Board, District-Patna, 6. Sub Divisional Magistrte, Danapur, Patna, District-Patna. … Respondents. with CWJC No.17207 of 2007 Dhaneshwar Rai, S/o Sri Ishari Rai, R/o Mohalla- Naya Tola, P.S.- Danapur, District-Patna. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Danapur Cantonment Board through its Member Secretary –cum- Chief Executive Officer, District-Patna. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Danapur Cantonment Board, Danapur, District-Patna. 4. Commanding Officer, Danapur Cantonment-cum-the President, Danapur Cantonment Area, District-Patna. 5. District Magistrate cum Member, Danapur Cantonment Board, District-Patna, 6. Sub Divisional Magistrte, Danapur, Patna, District-Patna. … Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Griyaghey, Advocate. Mr. Ram Kripal Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Arbind Kumar No.2, G.P.-XX. ----------- 4. 23.11.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities in both the writ cases which have been heard together. 2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners challenging order dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure-4 of CWJC No. 217 of 2008 and Annexure-5 of - 2 - CWJC No. 17207 of 2007) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Danapur Cantonment Board (Respondent no. 3) sealing the wine shops of the petitioners and also for directing Respondent No. 3 to decide the representations/applications for grant of licence of the shops to the petitioners and removal of the seal and for payment of compensations due to loss sustained during the closure of the shop. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the licences were granted to them in accordance with law after fulfilling all the formalities and after payment of the requisite fees and charges etc. and they had opened their shops within the area of Danapur Nagar Parishad for which licences were given to them and only with ulterior motives, the impugned action has been taken against the petitioners in spite of the fact that letter dated 21.08.2007 (Annexure-6 of CWJC No. 217 of 2008 and Annexure- 5 of CWJC No. 17207 of 2007) had been issued by the District Magistrate to the Chief Executive Officer, Danapur Cantonment Board that shops of the petitioners should not be sealed and if the shops have to be shifted appropriate time should be given to the petitioners to remove the seal. He further submits that if the respondents are cancelling the licences and sealing the shops of the petitioners, the money, fees and charges, which was deposited by the petitioners, must be refunded to them with interest. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that licences were given to the petitioners - 3 - for opening liquor shops within the area of Danapur Nagar Parishad, but the petitioners had opened their shops in the Cantonment Area, which is a secured zone and hence, the petitioners committed grave irregularities by opening their shops in the Cantonment Board Area on the pretext of the licences issued to them. It is also stated that Excise Department cannot give liquor licence for the Cantonment Area which will be against the rules and thus the impugned action of the respondent authorities are in accordance with law. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds sufficient materials on the basis of which the authorities concerned had to take impugned action against the petitioners. So far as the letter of the Collector dated 21.08.2007 (Annexure 6 of CWJC No. 217 of 2008 and Annexure- 5 of CWJC No. 17207 of 2007) is concerned, it is not a specific direction to act in a particular manner, rather it is only a suggestion that if the rules provide some benefits should be given to the petitioners. But in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there was no occasion for being lenient to the petitioners, who had violated the specific provisions of law and the terms of the licence. Hence, this court does not find any merit in either of the two writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. 6. If the petitioners want any refund of any amount from the authorities concerned with interest, they will be at liberty to move before the appropriate authority within a - 4 - period of 15 days from today for the said purpose along with a copy of this order and the said authority shall decide the matter on its own merit in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Sujit (S.N. Hussain, J.)