[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
M/S Globus Spirits Ltd vs The State Of Bihar on 10 December, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10011 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Spicy Beverage Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956 having its registered office at Gandhi Road, Dhansar, Dhanbad,
Jharkhand - 828106 through its Director, Deepak Kumar, Male, Aged about
24 Years S/o Sri Shankar Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Uchhaila, P.S.- Rohtas,
District- Rohtas, Pin Code- 821311
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise and Prohibition,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar,
Patna
3. The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, A Government of Bihar
Undertaking having its registered office at Eastern Wing, 1st Floor, Vidyut
Bhawan, Patna through its Managing Director.
4. The Managing Director, The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited,
having its registered office at Eastern Wing, 1st Floor, Vidyut Bhawan,
Patna.
5. The Depot Manager, Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, Chapra.
6. The Depot Manager, Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, Motihari.
7. The Superintendent of Excise, Saran.
8. The Superintendent of Excise, East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10246 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Globus Spirits Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956 having its registered office at A-46, New Friends Colony, New Delhi
through its Authorised Signatory Shivam Kumar Mishra (Male) aged about 27
years son of Sri. Chandra Bhushan Mishra, Resident of Village Asi, P.S.
Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga- 847203
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise and Prohibition,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, A Government of Bihar
Undertaking having its registered office at Eastern Wing, 1 st Floor, Vidyut
Bhawan, Patna through its Managing Director.
4. The Managing Director, The Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
2/29
having its registered office at Eastern Wing, 1st Floor, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna.
5. The Depot Manager, Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, Patna.
6. The Depot Manager, Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, Sasaram.
7. The Depot Manager, Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited, Jamui
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10011 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Senior Advocate
Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anuj Kumar, AC to GP-24
For the Beverage Corp. : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Aradhana Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10246 of 2024)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Senior Advocate
Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anuj Kumar, AC to GP-24
For the Beverage Corp : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Aradhana Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 10-12-2025
Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Ms. Kanupriya, learned counsel for the petitioner(s),
Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikash
Kumar, learned counsel for the Bihar State Beverage Corporation
Limited and Mr. Anuj Kumar, learned AC to GP-24 for the State of
Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
3/29
2. Since both the writ applications involve common
questions for consideration, on the request of learned counsel for
the parties, these matters have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
3. For sake of clarity, we will briefly take note of the
facts of the two writ applications separately hereinafter.
CWJC No. 10011 of 2024
4. In this writ application, the petitioner is a Public
Limited Company engaged in manufacturing and supply of
country liquor in Polyethylene Terephthalate (in short 'PET')
bottles. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Bihar
came with a policy decision whereunder tenders were invited from
the eligible person/partnership firms/companies in terms of tender
notice dated 31.01.2014 published in the Bihar Gazette
(Extraordinary) (Annexure 'P/1'). For purpose of the allotments,
the entire zones were divided into seventeen zones and the contract
for manufacture and supply of country liquor was equally divided
amongst seventeen contractors. The petitioner was allotted Zone
No. 9 (Vaishali Zone). This firm had quoted the rate for supply at
Rs. 4.14 per 200 ml. PET bottles and was granted exclusive
privilege and consequential licence for supply to the Bihar State
Beverage Corporation Limited, a Government of Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
4/29
Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' or
'BSBCL'), during the period 01.04.2015 and 31.03.2016. The
exclusive privilege order dated 04.03.2014 and licence granted to
the petitioner are Annexure 'P/2' and 'P/2/1' respectively.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
granted licence in Form 27 and under the licence, he was made
liable to supply country liquor at the contracted rate to the
wholesaler. The wholesaler was granted licence in Form 27(C).
The wholesaler had to issue Orders For Supply (in short 'OFS')
and the petitioner was obliged to supply the country liquor in PET
bottles as per the requisition received from the wholesaler. In
terms of the licence (Annexure 'P/2/1') Clause 8 (£) in case of
failure on the part of the petitioner to make supplies, the petitioner
would be liable to suffer penalty as per direction of the Excise
Commissioner in the manner stated in Clause 8 (£) of the licence.
There is a complete bar in selling the country liquor to any other
person except the wholesaler.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that from a bare reading
of the terms and conditions of tender which form part of the
licence (Clause 23 of the tender document), it would appear that
the terms of tender are also terms of licence and a joint reading of
Annexure 'P/2' and Annexure 'P/2/1' would clearly show that in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
5/29
fact, the manufacturer having licence in Form 27 was selling the
country liquor in PET bottles as per requisition (OFS) received
from the Corporation. Once the supply is made to the Corporation
and the invoices are drawn showing the Corporation as purchaser,
the manufacturer was not liable for further sale of the country
liquor in PET bottles to the retailers.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that on a bare
perusal of the invoices, it would appear that the tax invoice is
drawn showing the Corporation as purchaser, the description of
goods, quantity in numbers, quantity in LPL, unit rate and total
amount plus VAT is drawn. On receipt of the country liquor in its
godown, the Corporation was issuing a material inward slip
showing the receipt of the material/liquors, invoice number,
invoice date, invoice amount and the arrival date. A certificate is
also issued in the material inward slip that the goods have been
delivered in good condition.
8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in this manner,
the petitioner was making payment of excise duty and VAT over
and above the cost incurred for manufacturing of country liquor in
PET bottles. The payments on account of licence fee, differential
fee (i.e. the difference amount between the tendered rates and the
base rate on the entire Minimum Guarantee Quota (MGQ) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
6/29
zone allotted to the manufacturer), excise duty and VAT are paid
by the manufacturer in advance to the Government Exchequer.
9. The petitioner claimed that on award of contract for a
period of five years ending on 31.03.2019, the petitioner made
huge investment running into around Rs. Ten Crores in the
establishment and manufacturing plant but immediately thereafter,
the State Government notified its new Excise Policy on 21 st
December, 2015 providing inter alia that from 01 April, 2016,
there will be a complete prohibition in manufactures and sale of
country liquor in the State of Bihar. A gazette notification dated
04.02.2016
was issued whereunder it was provided that the
remaining stocks of country liquor available at the manufacturer's
premises, corporation godown and retail shops shall be destroyed
after the sale hour of 31.03.2016.
10. The petitioner has highlighted in course of hearing
the fact that even after the gazette notification dated 04.02.2016,
the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna directed vide order dated
27.02.2016 (Annexure 'P/4') to supply country liquor to the
Aurangabad and Gaya Depot of the Corporation with a clear
stipulation that in case of failure of the petitioner to supply the
country liquor, its licence shall be cancelled. The petitioner was,
therefore, bound to supply country liquors as per the requisition of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
the Corporation. In the month of March, 2016, the Corporation
issued OFS for 1 lakh LPL valued at Rs.1,45,87,500/- for supply to
the Motihari Depot of the Corporation and OFS for 2,61,938 LPL
valued at Rs.3,82,10,205.75/- for supply to the Chapra Depot of
the Corporation. Copies of the OFS issued in the month of March,
2016 have been brought on record as Annexure 'P/5' (series).
11. In paragraphs '19' and '20' of the writ application,
the petitioner has shown the total supplies made by the petitioner
to the Corporation. It is stated that the Corporation is yet to make
payment for the stocks of country liquor supplied to the
Corporation in the following warehouses:-
(1) Motihari 6929.68 LPL and;
(2) Chapra 10554.40 LPL Total 17484.08 LPL.
12. It is submitted that the Corporation failed to ensure
sale of these quantities, hence, the unsold stock at the warehouses
of the Corporation were destroyed on 31.03.2016 as per direction
of the Government. The petitioner claims a sum of
Rs.25,50,490.17/- against the supplies aforesaid. Demands were
made by the petitioner but the said demand has been rejected by
the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure 'P/11') issued
under signature of the Managing Director of the Corporation. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
this impugned order which is under challenge in this writ
application.
13. A prayer has been made to quash the impugned order
and direct the respondent i.e. the State Government or the Bihar
State Beverage Corporation Limited to make payment of the sale
price of 17484.08 LPL valued at Rs.25,50,490/- supplied by the
petitioner to the Chapra and Motihari Depot of the Bihar State
Beverage Corporation Limited under statutory contract executed
between the petitioner and the State Government. Petitioner has
also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% on the aforesaid amount
from March, 2016 till the date of its actual payment.
14. Petitioner in this writ application is M/s Globus
Spirits Limited which is a public limited company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956.
15. The facts as revealed in the writ application are
almost similar. This petitioner had also participated in the tender
(Annexure 'P/1') and was allotted Zone No. 1 (Patna Urban). The
petitioner had quoted the rate for supply at Rs. 4.54 per 200 ml
PET bottles. It was granted exclusive privilege and consequential
licence in Zone No. 1 for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016.
After reiterating identical facts as stated in the case of M/s Spicy
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
Beverage Private Limited, the petitioner has stated that, though
this petitioner was conferred contract for supply of country liquor
only in Zone No. 1 (Patna Urban), by order of the Excise
Commissioner, Bihar, Patna dated 27.02.2016, the petitioner was
also directed to supply country liquor to the Aurangabad and Gaya
Depot of the Corporation failing which the licence shall be
cancelled.
16. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of
March, 2016, the Corporation had issued the following OFS to the
petitioner:-
(i) OFS for 790372 LPL valued at Rs. 11,45,35,651.80/-
for supply to Patna Depot of the Corporation,
(ii) OFS for 125016.96 LPL valued at Rs.
1,82,36,849.04 for supply to the Aurangabad Depot of the
Corporation and;
(iii) OFS for 160000 LPL valued at Rs. 2,33,40,000/-
for supply to the Gaya Depot of the Corporation.
17. It is stated that the petitioner supplied altogether
571368.96 LPL, however, against the said supply to the
Corporation, the petitioner is yet to be paid for the following
stocks of country liquor supplied to the following warehouses:-
(i) Patna 96605.12 LPL,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
(ii) Aurangabad 23060.64 LPL,
(iii) Gaya 1938.24 LPL,
(iv) Jamui 959.68 LPL, Total 122563.68 LPL.
18. The grievance of the petitioner is that it's demand for
the sale price of the aforementioned quantity of country liquor
supplied by it amounting to Rs.1,78,62,779.52/- has been rejected
by the Managing Director of the Corporation vide the impugned
order dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure 'P/11'). The petitioner has,
therefore, prayed for setting aside of the order dated 20.05.2024
(Annexure 'P/11') and to direct the State Government or the
Corporation to make payment of the sale price of the 122563.68
LPL of country liquor valued at Rs. 1,78,62,779.52/- and also to
make payment of interest thereon at the rate of 18% from March,
2016 till the date of its actual payment.
Common submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
19. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Senior Counsel
representing the petitioners in both the writ applications has
assailed the impugned order (Annexure 'P/11'). It is submitted that
the Managing Director of the Corporation has completely erred in
agreeing with the submissions on behalf of the Corporation that it
was the duty of the manufacturer to regulate the sale of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
supplied quantity of country liquor. He has also erred in taking a
view that the role of the Corporation was that of a facilitator only.
20. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits
that the Managing Director has in fact failed to appreciate that the
relevant clauses of the Liquor Sourcing Policy of the year 2008-09
had been struck down by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
CWJC No. 312 of 2009 (Trigger Goods Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Bihar
State Beverage Corporation Ltd.). The said judgment of the
Hon'ble Division Bench is under challenge in Civil Appeal No.
160 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but there is no stay
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Moreover, it is
submitted that the said Liquor Sourcing Policy of 2008-09 has
nothing to do with the present case where a fresh tender notice
came to be published on 4th February, 2014 and Excise License in
Form 27 was issued to the manufacturer (petitioner) for supply of
country liquor in PET bottles to the wholesaler on the rates fixed
by the competent committee.
21. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Managing
Director of the Corporation has further failed to appreciate the
ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of
Sanjay R. Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No.
407 of 2017) wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
Corporation would be liable to pay for the entire supplies made by
the petitioner even as those supplies became surplus and could not
be sold/consumed. In the said case also, the payment was made to
the petitioner for the quantity of his supply which were
consumed/sold but the Corporation was not paying for the supplies
which remained unsold. Thus, the reasoning and rationale
provided in the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of
Sanjay R. Kumar would equally apply in case of these petitioners.
Submissions on behalf of the Corporation
22. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned Advocate would
rely upon the stand taken by Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the counter
affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit. Learned Senior
Counsel submits that the petitioner was granted permission for
manufacturing and supply of country-made liquor in PET bottles
pursuant to the notice inviting tender dated 31.03.2014. The
petitioner was granted permission under Memo No. 623 dated
04.03.2014. Clause 14 of the said Memo provided that the supplier
will have to follow the terms and conditions of notice, excise laws
and all orders issued from time to time by the Commissioner
Excise, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
23. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the
Corporation had no responsibility to sell the country-made liquor
supplied by the petitioners. The Corporation was confined to be
the distributor of the country-made liquor and the entire
responsibility of selling its stocks was upon the petitioner. The
Corporation was only a facilitator.
24. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the new
Excise Policy of the State was notified vide Notification No. 3893
dated 21.12.2015. The main objective of the new Excise Policy
was to bring about total prohibition with respect to the liquor in the
State of Bihar. The Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 was
enacted by the State Government which completely prohibited
manufacturing, supply, sale, storage, consumption, etc., of the
country-made liquor in the State of Bihar. The Gazette Notification
dated 04.02.2016 was published and as a result thereof, the new
Liquor Policy came into force with effect from 01.04.2016. Under
this new policy, the stocks lying in the manufacturing units,
godowns of the Corporation and the retail stores were liable to be
destroyed on 31.03.2016 after sale hours. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that the said notification does not lay responsibility upon
the Corporation to sell stocks of country-made liquor by
31.03.2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
25. It is submitted that the Corporation is liable to pay to
the manufacturers only for the stocks sold and the unsold stocks
were not eligible for any payment. The judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench in case of M/s Sanjay R. Kumar has been sought
to be distinguished on the ground that the said judgment relates to
the supplies made prior to the promulgation of Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016. On these grounds, the learned Senior
Counsel for the Corporation has defended the impugned order
(Annexure 'P/11').
Stand of the State Government
26. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State. It appears that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has not only
defended themselves but have also defended the Corporation. It is
stated in paragraph '17' of the counter affidavit that neither the
answering respondents nor the BSBCL had the responsibility to
sell the country-made liquor supplied by the petitioners and the
role of the BSBCL was confined to be the distributor of the
country-made liquor. According to the State, the stocks which
remained unsold on 31.03.2016 cannot be taken as outright sale by
the petitioner to the BSBCL.
27. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners would submit that as back as in the year 2006, vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
Memo No. 2456, the State Government had resolved to constitute
a Corporation under the Companies Act, 1956 to deal in wholesale
of country and foreign liquor to whom the privilege of wholesale
of country liquor and foreign liquor shall be conferred. Under
Clause 9 of the said Resolution, it was provided that separate
licence for manufacturing and wholesale shall be provided. A copy
of the said Resolution is Annexure 'P/13' attached to the
supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in CWJC No.
10011 of 2024. In view of this decision of the State Government,
the Board of Revenue in exercise of its powers conferred under
Section 90 of the Bihar Excise Act amended the existing licence in
Form No. 27 prescribed under the Bihar Excise Act for
manufacture and wholesale supply of country liquor and provided
licences in Form No. 27 and 27 (x) which was licence to
manufacture of country liquor and supply it to the wholesale
licencee in Form 27(x). The licences were also notified in the
Official Gazette on 23.09.2006. Copy of the Gazette Notification
is Annexure 'P/14'. It is submitted that in such circumstance, the
stand of the State as well as the Corporation that the Corporation is
only a facilitator, is a wholly misconceived and misplaced
submission which are liable to be rejected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
Consideration
28. Having heard the rival submissions, this Court has
gone through the pleadings/materials available on the record. It
appears that a tender notice dated 31st January, 2014 was published
in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) issue on 03rd February, 2014
(Annexure 'P/1'). The tender notice was issued inviting eligible
persons/firms who are desirous of getting licence in Excise Form-
27 for manufacturing of country liquor and supply thereof in PET
bottles. Clause '2' of the tender notice lays down the eligibility
conditions. Clause 2 (£) (i) lays down a condition that the willing
tenderers shall submit their tender together with a security deposit
amount of Rs. One Crore. It provides that while the said amount
shall be returned to the unsuccessful tenderers, the tenderers who
shall be allotted the area on the given rate if fails to provide
supplies then their security deposit shall be forfeited and for future
they shall be blacklisted. It is, thus, submitted that a licencee in
Excise Form 27 is obliged to make supplies as per the OFS.
Failure in supply has serious consequences.
29. Clause '3' of the tender notice provides the manner
in which the rate of supply is to be determined. An authorized
committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman-cum-Member
Board of Revenue shall fix the base rate for 200 ml and 400 ml
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
pack size. This base rate for 200 ml has been fixed at 5.78 and for
400 ml it is 9.76. The base rate includes the entire cost up to
delivery in the godown of the Corporation but VAT etc. are to be
added thereafter and on this rate, payment is to be made to the
supplier. The difference between the base rate and the tender rate
is to be paid to the Government in accordance with the procedures
provided in the further paragraphs. We would produce paragraph
3(i) of the tender notice hereinbelow for a ready reference:-
3- vkiwfrZ ewY; ds fu/kkZj.k dh izfØ;k %&
¼i½ v/;{k&lg&lnL;] jktLo Ik'kZn dh v/;{krk esa izkf/kd`r lfefr }
kjk 200 ,e-,y ,oa 400 ,e-,y- Pack size ds fy, vk/kkj nj
¼Base Rate½ r; fd;k x;k gS tks fuEuor~ gS %& ¼B½
vk/kkj nj ¼Base Rate½
200 ,e-,y 400 ,e-,y-
5-78 ¼ik¡p :i;s vBÙkj iSls½ 9-76 ¼ukS :i;s fNgÙkj
iSls½
;g csl jsV ch0,l0ch0lh0,y0 ds xksnke esa igq¡pk dj ¼lHkh
izdkj ds ykxr lfgr½ gksxk ijarq VAT vkfn dk eqY;kadu
blds ckn fd;k tk;sxkA blh nj ij Hkqxrku vkiwfrZdÙkkZvks dks
fd;k tk;sxkA vk/kkj nj ,oa fufonk nj ds e/; dh vUrj jkf"k
dk Hkqxrku fufonk nkrk }kjk vkxs dh dafMdkvksa esa nh xbZ
izfØ;k ds vuqlkj ljdkj dks djuk gksxkA
30. It is evident from clause 3(vi)(vi) that the conditions
of tender are to be taken as conditions of licence and breach of the
condition is to be taken as violation and the licence would be liable
to be cancelled under Section 42 and penalty may be imposed
under Section 42(g), (h) of the Excise Act. We would reproduce
the relevant clause (vi) hereunder:-
"¼vi½ fufonk dh "krZ vuqKfIr dh "krZ ekuh tk,xh rFkk blds
mYya?ku dh fLFkfr esa mRikn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 42 ds rgr
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
vuqKfIr fo[kafMr dj nh tk,xh vFkok /kkjk 42¼g½]¼h½ ds rgr
vFkZn.M yxk;k tk ldsxkA"
31. Excise Form '27' is the licence issued to a
manufacturer for supply of country liquor in PET bottles to the
wholesaler who has got licence in Form 27(C). This licence is
issued in terms of Sections 13 and 20 of the Bihar Excise Act,
1915. The form contains the conditions. For brevity sake, we
reproduce condition nos. 7 and 8 hereunder:-
"7- bl vuqKfIr ds v/khu "kjkc dh fcØh le;≤ ij dsoy
mUgha O;fDr;ksa ¼Fkksd vuqKfIr izkIr fcØsrk ds :i esa fofufnZ'V½
ds lkFk dh tk;sxh] tks fofgr izi= esa ikjd is"k djsaxs vkSj
ftlesa muds gkFk "kjkc cspus dk izkf/kdkj fn;k x;k gks vksj
mudh gkFk dsoy mlh izdkj@izdkjksa vkSj mruh gh ek=k esa
"kjkc dh fcØh dh tk;sxh] tks ,sls ikjdksa esa mfYyf[kr gks] mlls
vf/kd ughaA
8- ¼d½ vuqKfIr/kkjh dks ml fofuekZ.k"kkyk ls tgka mls vuqKfIr
ds v/khu le;≤ ij "kjkc cspus dh vuqefr nh x;h gks]
vuqKfIr izkIr Fkksd fcØsrkvksa }kjk is'k fd;s x;s ikjdksa esa
mfYyf[kr ek=kk ;k ek=kvksa esa vkSj izdkj@izdkjksa dh "kjkc dh
fcØh ds rkSj ij vkiwfÙkZ djus ds fy, ck/; gksxkA
¼[k½ mi;ZqDr "kÙksZ&7 esa fofufnZ'V "kjkc dh vkiwfÙkZ esa pwd djus
ij mRikn vk;qDr ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vFkZ naM yxk;k tk;sxkA
vFkZnaM dh jde mruh rd gks ldrh gS tks vuqKfIr izkIr Fkksd
fcØsrkvksa }kjk ekaxh x;h fdUrq vkiwfÙkZ u dh x;h "kjkc ij yxus
okys mRikn dj rFkk vkiwfrZ esa pwd ds pyrs ljdkj dks gksus
okys jktLo dh gkfu dh jde gksA
¼x½ vuqKk/kkjh] lekgÙkkZ ;k mRikn vk;qDr ds vkns"kkuqlkj vU;
fdlh vuqKfIr/kkjh ds fofuekZ.k"kkyk dks ml vuqKfIr/kkjh ds [kpZ
ij "kjkc dh vkiwfrZ djsxk tks fu/kkZfjr ek=k esa "kjkc dh vkiwfÙkZ
djus esa foQy jgk gSA vk;qDr mRikn vius foosd ls ,sls foQy
vuqKfIr/kkjh ij vFkZnaM yxk ldrs gSA
¼?k½ ;fn fdlh iz{ks= ds fu;qDr Bsdsnkj }kjk "kjkc dh vkiwfrZ
ugha dh tk jgh gks rks lekgÙkkZ ;k mRikn vk;qDr ds vkns"k ij
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
ml iz{ks= ds fu;qfDr Bsdsnkj }kjk "kjkc dh vkiwfrZ ugha dh tk
jgh gks rks lekgÙkkZ ;k mRikn vk;qDr ds vkns"k ij ml iz{ks= ds
vxy&cxy ds iz{ks= esa dk;Zjr Bsdsnkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr nj ij
ml vUkqKfIr/kkjh dks ns"kh "kjkc dh vkiwfÙkZ djkuk ck/;dkjh
gksxkA
¼M+½ vuqKfIr/kkjh mu lHkh lkekU; ;k fo"ks'k vkns"kksa ls vkc)
gksxk tks mRikn vk;qDr le; le; ij tkjh djsaA"
32. On perusal of the aforementioned conditions, it is
crystal clear that the petitioner having obtained licence in Excise
Form No. 27 was obliged to sale the country liquor in PET bottles
only to those persons who were having wholesaler's licence and
on the basis of the OFS. The petitioner was also obliged to abide
by the directions issued by the Excise Commissioner from time to
time. A complete reading of the conditions mentioned in the tender
notice and the licence in Form 27 would make it clear that
everywhere it talks of 'sale' by the manufacturer to the wholesaler
on the basis of OFS and on the rate determined in terms of clause
'3' of the tender notice. Neither the tender notice nor the licence
anywhere talk of a responsibility on the part of the manufacturer to
ensure sell of its supplies to the wholesaler by making
arrangements for retail sale.
33. At this stage, we find that Clause '22' of the
conditions of licence reserves right of the Government to stop
supply of country liquor in any area in accordance with its excise
policy or for any other special reasons. In such condition, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
supplier would be liable to abide by the directions of the
Government in respect of supply, supply pattern or changes in
respect of the bottling in PET bottles. For this reason, the
manufacturer (licence holder) shall not be entitled for any
compensation. Clause '22' as standing in the licence form reads as
under:-
"22- ljdkj dk ;g vf/kdkj lqjf{kr gS fd og viuh e| fu'ks/k
uhfr ds vuqlkj ;k vU; dksbZ fo"ks'k dkj.k ls fdlh Hkh {ks= esa
ns"kh "kjkc dh vkiwfrZ cUn dj ns ;k vkiwfrZ iz.kkyh ;Fkk Pet
Bottle esa ckWVfyax dh O;oLFkk esa ifjoÙkZu djsa] vuqKfIr/kkjh
mlls ck/; gksxk ,oa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh {kfriwfÙkZ dk gdnkj ugha
gksxkA "
34. We have noticed that vide resolution dated 27th
January, 2016, the new Excise Policy, 2016 was sought to be made
effective from 01.04.2016. Under the new Excise Policy, sale of
country liquor, spicy country liquor and manufacturing and
consumption were fully prohibited. Vide Clause '4' of the
resolution dated 27th January, 2016 notified in Gazette on 04 th
February, 2016, the decision of the Government was made clear.
We reproduce Clause '4' hereunder for a ready reference:-
"4- mi;qZDr fcUnqvksa ij lE;d fopkjksijkUr ljdkj }kjk fu.kZ;
fy;k x;k gS fd %&
¼i½ fnukad 01-04-2016 ls ns"kh "kjkc@elkysnkj ns"kh "kjkc dk
fuekZ.k fcØh ,oa miHkksx ij izfrca/k ds QYkLo:i ns"kh "kjkc ,oa
elkysnkj ns"kh "kjkc ds fuekZ.k"kkyk] ch0,l0ch0lh0,y0 xksnke
rFkk [kqnjk nqdkuksa esa vo"ks'k cps ns"kh "kjkc ,oa elkysnkj ns"kh
"kjkc ds miyC/k Lda/k dks 31-03-2016 ds fcØh dky ds i"pkr~
ys[kk la/kkj.k dj fou'V fd;k tk;sxkA
¼ii½ 01-04-2016 ls fons'kh 'kjkc ds O;kikj dh vuqefr
chå,låchålhå,yå dks nh x;h gSA vr,o xSj ljdkjh [kqnjk
nqdkunkjksa }kjk fnukad 31-03-2016 rd lapkfyr nqdkuksa esa
miyC/k fons'kh 'kjkc dks 31-03-2016 ds fcØh dky ds i'pkr~
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
ys[kk la/kkj.k dj bls lhy can dj fn;k tk;sxk ,oa bldk
fu"iknu i"kZnh; vuqns'k 117 ds rgr chå,låchålhå,yå }kjk
Ø; dj fd;k tk;sxk A
¼iii½ jkT; esa dk;Zjr vklofu;ksa ds }kjk 29-02-2016 ds i'pkr~
la'kksf/kr lq"ko dk mRiknu ugha fd;k tk;xkA Nksvk vk/kkfjr
¼Molasses based½ vklofu;‚] 01 vçSy] 2016 ls viuh {kerk
dk 100 çfr'kr bFku‚y gh cuk,axhA ;g bFku‚y rsy dEifu;ksa
dks isVªksy@Mhty esa Blending gsrq vkiwfrZ fd;k tk;xk A
vukt vk/kkfjr ¼Grain based½ vklofu;k¡] 01 vçSy] 2016 ls
viuh {kerk dk 100 çfr'kr ENA gh cuk,axhA bFku‚y / ENA
cukus ds Øe esa tks Hkh fo--r lq"ko vFkok vU; dksbZ Bye
Product fudyrk gS rks mls vfuok;Zr% u"V djuk gksxk A"
35. It is an admitted fact that even after the aforesaid
decision of the Government, the Excise Commissioner, Bihar
issued Memo No. 901 dated 27.02.2016 calling upon some of the
manufacturers like the present petitioners to make supplies of 200
ml country liquor in the various places. M/s Spicy Beverage
Private Limited, Vaishali was asked to supply at Motihari whereas
M/s Globus Beverage Private Limited was asked to make supplies
at Aurangabad and Gaya. Memo No. 901 dated 27.02.2016
(Annexure 'P/4') clearly states that in case of non-compliance with
the direction, the licence shall be cancelled and the manufacturing
unit shall be closed. It is, therefore, apparent that on the direction
of the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, the petitioners supplied the
given quantity as per OFS in the various places of the Corporation.
Copies of the OFS have been brought on record by the petitioners
in both the writ applications as Annexure 'P/5' (series).
36. We have no iota of doubt that the petitioners being
manufacturers and licencee under Excise Form 27 were obliged to
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
abide by the terms and conditions of the licence. They were also
obliged to abide by the command of the Excise Commissioner,
Bihar, Patna. They did so and on receipt of the directions, supplies
were made as per the OFS.
37. The Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have relied upon Liquor
Sourcing Policy 2008-09 by which the Corporation had during the
relevant period laid down the terms and conditions for purchase of
country made liquors and spiced country made liquor from its
manufacturers. At the relevant time, the petitioner is said to have
entered into an agreement dated 10.06.2008 with the Corporation
in terms of the then Liquor Sourcing Policy, however, the said
Liquor Sourcing Policy was under challenge in CWJC No. 312 of
2009. A Division Bench of this Court held that certain clauses such
as clause 2(iv), 2.8, 5.2, 8.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.5, 9.6, 10.2, 10.3, 11,
12.1, 15.0, 15.1 and 15.2 of the Liquor Sourcing Policy of 2008-09
were against the provisions of the statutory rules and violative of
the conditions of licence. A copy of the judgment of this Court
rendered on 22.04.2009 in CWJC No. 312 of 2009 has been
brought on record as Annexure 'R/2'. It is stated that the
Corporation has preferred Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2013 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in which leave has been granted and the
Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2013 is presently pending before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no stay of the judgment of
Hon'ble High Court.
38. Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation has
submitted that earlier under the Liquor Sourcing Policy 2008-09,
Clause 11.1 provided that the Corporation shall pay the
manufacturers only for the stocks sold. Unsold stock shall not be
eligible for any payment by the Corporation. Further, Clause 11.2
provided that it is the responsibility of the manufacturers and not
the Corporation to effect the sales. The role of the Corporation
shall be that of a facilitator only. It is not disputed that this position
was under the Liquor Sourcing Policy of 2008-09 but the entire
Clause 11 was struck down by this Court.
39. To this Court, it appears that any reference of Liquor
Sourcing Policy, 2008-09 in the present case would be wholly
irrelevant. The fact is that in the year 2014 when the tender notice
was published and the licence in Form '27' was issued to the
manufacturers, there was no mention of the Liquor Sourcing
Policy and/or that of its binding nature upon the manufacturers.
Unlike the earlier position, this time the manufacturer and the
Corporation had no reason to enter into any agreement separately.
The Corporation was conferred with a monopolistic status of
wholesaler of all forms of liquor in the State of Bihar and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
manufacturers were obliged to give supplies only to the
Corporation as a wholesaler. The rate for supply was determined
and the licence itself provided that it will be a sale by the
manufacturer to the wholesaler for which the manufacturer will be
paid as per the determined rate. In fact, our views get strengthened
from the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in the
case of Sanjay R Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC
No. 407 of 2017) wherein vide judgment dated 27.04.2023, this
Court directed the 3rd respondent to pay the petitioner an amount of
Rs.7,12,941.60/- for the supplies made during the period
24.11.2011 to 30.12.2011. The Hon'ble Division Bench also
awarded interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of
supply till payment. We reproduce paragraphs '7', '8', '9' and '10'
of the judgment hereunder for a ready reference:-
"7. Learned counsel, representing the 03rd
Respondent, submits that petitioner had expressed
his inability to supply liquor to the adjoining district
(Muzaffarpur) as per communication of the
Superintendent, Excise, Muzaffarpur dated
20.12.2011. The respondents were, thus, compelled
to make alternative arrangement. The
manufacturer/supplier of CML from adjoining
district of Muzaffarpur, i e at Sheohar, was, thus,
issued an OFS of 50,000 liters of CML to
Muzaffarpur. The said supplier from Sheohar had
supplied the CML. Therefore, the entire supply made
by the petitioner became surplus and could not be
sold /consumed. The petitioner has been made
payment for the quantity of his supply which was
consumed/sold.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
8. This Court is not impressed by the submission
made on behalf of 03rd Respondent. The petitioner's
alleged express inability is dated 20.12.2011.
Thereafter, on 22.12.2011, OFS has been issued to
the petitioner to supply CML in question. On the
same date, the OFS has also been issued to the other
contractor at Sheohar. As a result of such OFS, the
quantum supplied by the petitioner is not in dispute.
It is also nobody's case that after placing an OFS to
the contractor of Sheohar, the petitioner had been
informed that he was not required to supply the
liquor. In fact, non-supply of the CML would have
entailed adverse consequence to the petitioner in
terms of the licence.
9. This Court, therefore, finds that the petitioner had
no option but to supply the CML. Subsequent non-
consumption of the same, due to dual arrangement
made by the RespondentCorporation, cannot be
made a ground for depriving the petitioner from his
dues for the supplies made. The reason assigned by
the Respondents in the counter affidavit is clearly
unsustainable and is rejected.
10. This Court directs that 03rd Respondent should
pay the petitioner an amount of Rs 7,12,941.60.
Since the petitioner has been deprived for the same
for such a long time, for reasons which are arbitrary
and unsustainable, this Court would consider it
appropriate that the petitioner be paid interest at the
rate of Rs 5% per annum from the date of supply till
payment, which in any case must be made within
four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this Court."
(underline is mine)
40. At this stage, when we examine the impugned order
passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, we find that
the Managing Director has agreed with the submissions advanced
on behalf of the representative of the Corporation. We, therefore,
reproduce the relevant part of the impugned order which would
contain the submissions of the Corporation and the views
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
expressed by the Managing Director of the Corporation
hereunder:-
"It was submitted further that in view of aforesaid
policy decision taken by the Government the
remaining stocks were destroyed on 31.03.2016 after
sale hour. The representative of BSBCL submits that
the Company had ample opportunity from 4.2.2016
till sale hour of 31.3.2016 to ensure sale but the
company failed to regulate sale. It is important to
mention here that it is the responsibility of the
manufacture/supplier and not the corporation to
affect the sale. The role of corporation shall be that
of a facilitator only. It was next submitted that in the
processes of mass destruction of country made
liquor, resources and Manpower of the State
Government was utilized which could have been
minimized if the Company would have adhered to
the Notification dated 4.2.2016 issued by the
Government.
After having heard the Parties I find force in the
submission of the representative of BSBCL that after
issuance of notification no. 3893 dated 21.12.2015
and Policy decision taken by the Government duly
published on 4.2.2016, the Company as such had
ample opportunity to regulate sale in which the
Company failed.
The order dated 27.4.2023 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court, Patna in C.W.J.C. No.407 of 2017 upon
which representative of the company has placed
reliance is of no help to the company since the facts
of C.W.J.C. No.407 of 2017 are quite distinct and
different to the facts of the case in hand. The said
case bearing C.W.J.C. No. 407 of 2017 relates to
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
cause of action which has arisen prior to enactment
of New Excise Policy.
In view of discussions madeherein above the
representation dated 13.12.2023 made by the
Company is hereby rejected."
41. In both the writ applications, the impugned order
contains the same reasoning and rationale, therefore, we are not
reproducing the extracts from the impugned order in case of M/s
Globus Spirits Private Ltd.
42. A bare reading of the impugned order(s) would show
that the representative of the Corporation has taken a baseless plea.
A factually wrong and misconceived submission seems to have
been made before the Managing Director of the Corporation. It
appears that the submissions were on the line of Clause '11' of the
Liquor Sourcing Policy, 2008-09 which had already been struck
down and those conditions were neither part of the tender notice
nor of the statutory licence in Excise Form 27. The State
Government was conscious while floating the tender notice and
putting conditions in Form 27 that those struck down conditions of
the Liquor Policy cannot be reiterated. The Managing Director of
the Corporation has completely erred in taking a view that the
manufacturer/company has failed to regulate the sale. He is not
correct in saying that the decision of this Court in CWJC No. 407
of 2017 would be of no help to the company/manufacturer. A mere
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
difference in the period of supply cannot be a distinguishing
feature of this case. The materials present on the record would
clearly demonstrate that the scheme of tender notice and the
licence made it clear that the supplies made by the manufacturer
were a sale to the wholesaler on the rate determined by the
Committee in terms of Clause 3 of the tender notice. The
petitioners are not seeking compensation for loss of business
because of the new excise policy. In fact, they are looking for the
sale proceeds on account of supplies already made to the
Corporation as per OFS. By no stretch of imagination, the
Corporation can claim that it was working as a facilitator. The
Corporation in this case was the sole wholesaler in the State of
Bihar. The impugned order(s), therefore, suffer from the vice of
irrelevant consideration. The reasoning and rationale provided in
the impugned orders are not based on the terms of tender and the
license.
43. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated
20.05.2024 (Annexure 'P/11') in both the writ applications. The
Bihar State Beverage Corporation Limited (Respondent No. 3) is
directed to make payment of the amount due against the admitted
supplies by the petitioners on the basis of the OFS and on the
direction of the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna together with
Patna High Court CWJC No.10011 of 2024 dt.10-12-2025
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 01.04.2016 till the date
of payment. The entire payment shall be made available to the
petitioners within a period of two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.
44. Accordingly, these writ applications are allowed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Rishi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 02.12.2025
Uploading Date 10.12.2025
Transmission Date
