LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 542 of 2005.
---
In the matter of an Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
—
K.D. Liquor and Fertilizer Private
Limited through its Authorised
Representative Shashi Kumar … … … … Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Member, Board of Revenue,
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Commissioner of Excise-cum-Secretary,
Jharkhand, Ranchi … … … … … Respondents
—
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumir Prasad, Standing Counsel (Mines).
—
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
—
R.K. Merathia, &
Prashant Kumar, JJ. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order
dated 14.7.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 3726 of
2005, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant for a direction on
the respondents to charge license fee @ Rs. 1/- per L.P. litre in respect of
country liquor for the extended period upto 30.6.2005 and/or adjust the
excess amount of license fee paid during the extended period.
3. It appears that the appellant was granted contract for the wholesale
supply of country liquor in Dhanbad Zone and Bokaro district in terms of
Clause 2 (Kha) of the tender notice (Annexure 1) under which the
appellant was required to pay license fee @ Rs. 1/- per L.P. litre. The
contract expired on 31.3.2005. As some time was required for giving a fresh
grant, the period of contract of the appellant was extended for two months
by letter dated 29.3.2005 (Annexure 2), under which for such extended
period, the appellant was required to pay @ Rs. 2/- L.P. litre as license fee.
The appellant accepted the said condition of the tender notice and
continued his business upto the extended period. After expiry of the said
2
period in June, 2005, a further extension was given on the aforesaid
condition upto 15.7.2005. The appellant did not raise any objection to the
first extension and continued his business for the period upto the expiry of
second extension. On expiry of first extension period, the appellant filed
the writ petition in question challenging enhancement of license fee @ Rs.
2/- per L.P. litre for the extended period.
4. The learned Single Judge in the order dated 14.7.2005 held as
follows:
” Admittedly, like renewal, extension is a fresh grant and in the renewal or
extension, the respondents can put any fresh condition that may be decided by the
Board of Revenue. Besides that it is well known that after accepting the condition of
contract which may be by way of extension, by way of renewal or by way of fresh
grant, the party to that effect cannot be allowed to challenge the condition. In my
opinion, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law.
This writ petition is dismissed.”
5. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
submitted that the appellant accepted the said condition under protest but
he could not show any averment in the writ petition to this effect.
Referring to paragraph 25 of this appeal, he submitted that the said
amount of license fee @ Rs. 2/- per L.P. litre was paid in compulsion.
6. Firstly the appellant tried to change his case made out in the writ
petition, in this Letters Patent Appeal by making such averment. Moreover
such averment is absolutely vague, general and without any document in
support thereof. Clearly the appellant acquiesced with the terms of
contract for the extended period.
7. Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Jharkhand rightly pointed out that the appellant did not challenge the
enhancement of fee in the writ petition.
8. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record,
we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
9. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. However, no
costs.
(R.K. Merathia, J.)
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi.
The 22nd January, 2009.
AKS/NAFR/Cp.3.