IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.14748 of 2010 ==================================================== 1. Lallan Prasad @ Lalan Pd. S/o Guru Prasad R/o Karpi, P.O./P.S.- Karpi, Distt.- Arwal/Jehanabad Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary/Commissioner Of Excise New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar 3. The Collector, Arwal, Jehanabad 4. The Superintendent Of Excise, Arwal/Jehanabad ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to AG ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6 15.04.2011 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by a licence holder for refund of the security deposit made by him for settlement of a liquor shop for the financial year 1999-2000. It is the claim of the petitioner that a country made liquor shop at Karpi was settled in his favour for the year 1999-2000. Since the completion of the year 1999-2000 the amount of security deposit in the sum of Rs. 30965/- was required to be refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner sent reminder on 2nd August 2004 and made one more application on 15th January 2011. As the respondent No.3, the District Collector, Arwal, Jehanabad failed to refund the amount the petitioner 2 has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is contested by the respondents. The Excise Superintendent, Jehanabad has made counter affidavit. It is stated that on receipt of the application on 15th January 2011 a sum of Rs. 30,350/- has been refunded to the writ petitioner. A sum of Rs. 615/- has been deducted as the petitioner had lifted more than the approved quota. It is also stated that no application was made by the petitioner prior to the receipt of the application on 15th January 2011. The payment was made on 8th February 2011 immediately on receipt of the said application dated 15th January 2011. In view of the payment made by the respondent authorities the cause of action does not survive. Petitioner is not entitled to interest on the amount of refund as the petitioner failed to approach the authority for refund of the amount of security deposit within reasonable time. For the aforesaid reason the petition is disposed of. Bibhash ( R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)