High CourtsDivision Bench

Rajan Prasad vs State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 19 June 2001 · Citation: (2001) 3 PLJR 806

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · Aftab Alam, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 4017 of 1987
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 303 words
1.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar under its resolution dated 20.7.1987 by which the Board of Revenue rejected the Petitioner�s claim for refund of the licence fee amounting to Rs. 82,800/- (at the rate of Rs. 16,560/ per month), besides the security deposited by the Petitioner for settlement of the retail country spirit vend for the year 1983.

2.

According to the Petitioner despite the issuance of the licence he was unable to run the vend for any period of time, it is the case of the Petitioner that the first two sites offered by him for setting up the vend were rejected by the Excise authorities as unsuitable. The Petitioner finally took a premises on rent and the third site offered by him received the approval., of the authorities. On this site also the Petitioner was unable to run the liquor vend on account of disturbances caused, according to him, by the persons of locality.

3.

The Member, Board of Revenue on a consideration of the Petitioner�s claim and on a scrutiny of the materials on record has found and held that the Petitioner was unable to set up the shop in the premises taken on rent on account of a dispute arising in the family of the landlord. The Member, Board of Revenue found and held, and in our opinion rightly, that the Petitioner�s inability in carrying on the business was not due to any cause attributable to the Government even remotely and the Government was not therefore, liable to make any refund of the licence fee to the Petitioner.

4.

We find that the Petitioner�s claim has been denied on a finding of fact which warrants no interference by this writ court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.