The Court dismissed two writ petitions seeking refund of IMFL license fees for a single-day period. It held that petitioners took a calculated risk, secured renewals for the next year, and approached the wrong authority, thus lacking merit for a refund.
The writ petitions and stay petitions were dismissed as they lacked merit; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 3884/2011
Rakesh Kumar Sidana
----Petitioner
Versus
State Excise And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ No. 3882/2011
Ramesh Kumar
----Petitioner Versus
State Excise And Ors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreedhar Mehta Ms. Nidhi Sharma for Dr. Sachin Acharya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
05/10/2018
These two writ petitions involved common question of law and are thus being decided together by this single order.
The petitioners herein, applied for grant of IMFL and beer retail wine licenses in furtherance of notification dated 19.02.2010. The licenses were being offered for the remaining period of the financial / license year 2009-2010 in the municipal limits of Sri Ganganagar.
The petitioner Shri Rakesh Kumar Sidana was selected for Zone No.2, Shop No.4 and the petitioner Ramesh Kumar was selected for Zone No.4. Both the petitioners were asked to deposit
[CW-3884/2011]
(2 of 5)
license fee to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-; earnest money to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and application fee to the tune of Rs.4,000/-. It appears that the process of allocation met a road block of litigation in form of a writ petition filed before this Court whereupon the notice to deposit the requisite fee was issued to each of the petitioners as late as on 30.03.2010. It may be noted here that by virtue of the fact that the licenses were offered only for the remainder for the financial year 2009-2010, the effective period for trading was of one day only i.e. 31.03.2010. Despite being conscious of that fact, the petitioners deposited the requisite fees on 30.03.2010, executed the indemnity bond etc. and the licenses were duly issued to them. Both the petitioners, claim that they were never issued RSBCL code and were not provided the requisite stock of liquor on 31.03.2010 and thus, they could not do any business in furtherance of the licenses allotted to them by the Excise Department. Both the petitioners submitted applications to this effect to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar on 08.12.2010 claiming reimbursement of the license fee to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by them while applying for the shops in question. The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, forwarded these applications to the District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar. However, upon failing to receive any response from the DEO, Sri Ganganagar the petitioners served notice for demand of justice and thereafter, filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to reimburse the license fees deposited by them.
Reply to the writ petitions was filed by the Excise Department way back in the month of May, 2011. It is affirmatively stated in the reply that the petitioners applied for
[CW-3884/2011]
(3 of 5)
the shops in question knowing very well that period of doing business would be curtailed. The said period was further reduced owing to the stay order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2025/2010. The said writ petition was finally dismissed on 23.03.2010 whereafter the lottery was conducted on 30.03.2010. It is averred at Para No.6 of the reply that the RSBCL Code is to be issued by the Corporation and not by the Excise Department and that no sooner the license is granted, name of the licensee/vendor is automatically uploaded in the RSBCL Software. The vendor is thereafter required to approach the depot for taking supply of liquor. It is pertinently stated in the reply that
the State Government’s had introduced a policy on 10.02.2010 permitting the wine license holders of the previous year and that the petitioners applied for the licenses in question so as to take advantage of this policy of the State Government. It is also mentioned in the reply that in terms of this policy, the petitioners were granted renewal of licenses for the subsequent year i.e. 2010-2011. The respondents have further asserted that the petitioners knew very well that they are not entitled for reimbursement of the license fees and that’s why they approached the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar instead of contacting the Department.
Reply was filed on behalf of Excise Department with these pertinent assertions seven years ago till date no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners. Thus, it has to be assumed that the averments made in the reply are uncontroverted.
[CW-3884/2011]
(4 of 5)
Shri R.S. Choudhary representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that the petitioners were not allowed to do business in furtherance of the limited period license and that they were also deprived of renewal of licenses and thus the license fee should be refunded to them. However, this plea advanced by Shri Choudhary that the petitioners did not get advantage of the licenses issued to them on 30.03.2010 is manifestly untenable in view of the averments made in the reply that on the strength of these very licenses, the petitioners managed to secure renewal for the subsequent year i.e. 20102011. Apparently, the entire endeavor of the petitioners by paying license fee for a single day was to take advantage of the State Government’s policy dated 10.02.2010 wherein an option was given to the licensee of the Year 2009-2010 to get the licence renewed for the subsequent financial year i.e. 2010-2011. As per the averments made in the reply the petitioners indeed procured renewal of their excise vend licenses for the subsequent year. There is no material available on record to show that the petitioners ever approached the depot for lifting the consignment of liquor in terms of the license dated 30.03.2010. The applications filed by the petitioners seeking refund of the license fee deposited against the questioned license were addressed to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who has no jurisdiction to act in excise matters.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to stake a claim for refund of license fee deposited by them against the disputed licenses as they took a calculated risk by applying for limited
[CW-3884/2011]
(5 of 5)
period license and also managed to take advantage thereof by getting renewal of licenses for the subsequent year.
As a result, the writ petitions as well as stay petitions lack merit and are dismissed as such. No costs.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Mamta/51-52
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to refund of license fees deposited for a single-day IMFL license when they secured renewals for the subsequent year.
Whether the applications for refund addressed to the District Collector having jurisdiction in excise matters should be entertained by this Court.
Rakesh Kumar Sidana
Ramesh Kumar
State Excise
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
