Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Decision on Licence Fees Appeal

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgments, dismissing all appeals with costs. The appellants were held liable to pay the licence fees despite their inability to establish the outstill shops. There was no basis for reducing the fees due to speculative bids or enmity. The claim for a refund on the ground of no quid pro quo was rejected. The court allowed the recovery of amounts in question in instalments over three years for appellants providing security for payment within that period. Appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the appellant to pay the licence fee despite not being able to establish the outstill shop.
2. Claim for reduction of the licence fees due to speculative bids and enmity.
3. Refund of fees on the ground of no quid pro quo.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of the appellant to pay the licence fee despite not being able to establish the outstill shop:
The appellant Ayodhya Prasad, who won the bid for establishing an outstill shop, faced opposition from villagers and was unable to secure a suitable location. Despite his efforts to establish the shop first at Bharbharia and then at Chittimitti, he could not operate the shop. The High Court ruled that the appellant was still liable to pay the licence fee as the responsibility for finding a suitable site was his, and the department was not responsible for providing the location. The appellant retained the licence and continued to bid in subsequent years, thereby preventing others from establishing the outstill. The court found no justification for the argument that nothing was payable because the appellant could not locate the shop despite his efforts.

2. Claim for reduction of the licence fees due to speculative bids and enmity:
Appellants Thakur Prasad Sao and others claimed losses due to speculative bids and enmity with Bishwanath Prasad and his brother. They argued that the Deputy Commissioner failed to refuse speculative bids, resulting in uneconomic licence fees. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, stating that the instructions in paragraphs 130 and 93 of the Regulations did not create any enforceable rights. Instruction No. 93 allows the presiding officer to refuse speculative bids, but it does not mandate the acceptance of the highest bid. Instruction No. 130 gives the Board the discretion to reduce licence fees under section 39 of the Act, but it is not an absolute right. The High Court found no grounds for reducing the fees as the appellants did not prove that the bids were speculative or that the Collector failed in his duty.

3. Refund of fees on the ground of no quid pro quo:
In Civil Appeal No. 1105 of 1975, the appellant sought a refund of fees, arguing that there was no quid pro quo. The High Court rejected this contention, stating that the amounts were payable for the exclusive privilege granted under section 22 of the Act. The court relied on previous decisions, including Nashirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, which established that the State has the exclusive right to grant such privileges and accept payment. The High Court found that the fees were a consideration for the exclusive privilege and not subject to refund.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgments, dismissing all the appeals with costs. It ruled that the appellants were liable to pay the licence fees despite their inability to establish the outstill shops, and there was no basis for reducing the fees due to speculative bids or enmity. The claim for a refund on the ground of no quid pro quo was also rejected. The court ordered that the amounts in question could be recovered in instalments over three years for appellants who could furnish security for payment within that period. Appeals dismissed.

---