Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Gurdeep Singh on 5 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A. No. 548 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Member, Board of Revenue, 1st Floor, HTI Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.
3. The Commissioner of Excise, Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S. Gonda, District
Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District
Ranchi.
5. The Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S. Gonda,
District Ranchi. .... Appellants
Versus
Gurdeep Singh, aged about 64 years, son of Late Sardar Kartar Singh, C/o
Hotel Mini Natraj, Main Road, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Daily Market, District
Ranchi. ... Respondent
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
For the Appellants : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to AAG-II
For the Respondent : None
---------------
5th February 2024
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
The State of Jharkhand has challenged the direction issued by
the writ Court to refund the proportionate amount of license fee to the
respondent herein for the period between 1st April 2017 to 12th November
2017.
2. The respondent is a licensee for the running of a bar-cum-
restaurant. For the financial year 2017-18, he was granted license on
payment of Rs.18 lacs as license fee. According to the respondent, he could
not carry on business in view of the direction issued in "State of T.N. v. K.
Balu" (2017) 2 SCC 281. Constrained, he approached the writ Court in
WP(C) No.4135 of 2018 to challenge the demand of Rs.18 lacs vide memo
dated 3rd November 2017. By an order dated 5th November 2018, the writ
Court remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise to take a
decision on the representation of the respondent for refund of the
proportionate license fee. However, the respondent-authority formed an
opinion that a representation for refund is not admissible under the rules
and, accordingly, passed the order dated 18th February 2019 reiterating that
the respondent is liable to pay Rs.18 lacs as license fee.
3. The said order was challenged in WP(C) No.1059 of 2020
wherein the writ Court has held as under:
"7. This Court is of the view that any rule or regulation is framed by the State
Government keeping in view the ideal situation and it generally does not deal
with the eventuality as has occurred in the present case. As per the Gazette
Notification dated 14.03.2014, the license fee for the relevant financial year
with respect to hotel, restaurant, club, bar and canteen was fixed as Rs.18 Lac
for the area within the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Admittedly, the
petitioner could not run his bar-cum-restaurant from 01.04.2017 to
12.11.2017 as his bar license was not renewed till that period for the reasons
discussed herein above. Thus, the impugned letter as contained in memo No.
282 dated 18.02.2019 issued by the respondent No.5 refusing
refund/adjustment of proportionate amount of license fee of the petitioner
appears to be unreasonable and arbitrary. Hence, the same cannot be sustained
in law and is hereby quashed and set aside. Though the petitioner as per his
calculation, has claimed refund of Rs.11,15,000/- as proportionate amount of
license fee, however, the respondent No.5 is directed to calculate the
proportionate amount of license fee of the petitioner for the period from
01.04.2017 to 12.11.2017 and to refund the same to him within six weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the
said amount shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum till the date of actual
payment."
4. The learned State counsel refers to section 36 of the Jharkhand
Excise Act, 2000 to submit that this is the power vested in the Board to
order a reduction of the amount of license fee but only for the unexpired
portion of the license.
5. In the order dated 5th November 2018, the writ Court recorded
that there was considerable confusion as regards running of a bar within 500
meters from the national and state highways on account of which the
respondent could run the restaurant only for about five months. This is a
matter of record that the bar license issued to the respondent was withheld in
view of the decision in "K. Balu" and it was renewed only on 13th
November 2017 for the financial year 2017-18. This cannot be disputed that
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land
and binding on all authorities under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
There is a direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K. Balu"
prohibited running of a bar within 500 meters of the national and state
highways and while so, it was not legally permissible for the respondent to
utilize the license granted to him on payment of Rs.18 lacs as license fee.
Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act provides that an agreement to do an
act impossible in itself is void. This is well-settled that impossibility as
envisaged under section 56 is not the literal impossibility and would refer to
a situation in which it becomes impermissible before the parties to carry on
their respective obligations. The judgment in "K. Balu" is the intervening
circumstance on account of which the bar license had become ineffective
and inoperative and, therefore, the writ Court rightly held the respondent
entitled to a proportionate reduction in the license fee.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with
the writ Court's decision and, accordingly, L.P.A. No. 548 of 2023 is
dismissed.
7. I.A. No.8900 of 2023 stands disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
R.K.
