3650/ per month.
the appellant how ever obtained a piece of land in village chittimitti and applied on july 30 1966 for permission to open the outstill shop there.
the appellant applied for a direction for the refund of rs.
39389.53 at kiriburu of rs.
from the judgment and order dated 15 3 1975 of the patna high companyrt in civil writ number.
271340/ which had already been realised from him and for restraining the realisation of a further sum of rs.
7300/ and for payment of companypensation for loss of anticipated profits and dam ages but the application was rejected.
this was allowed and the appellant claimed that he began to companylect the necessary material but a mob forcibly removed the building and the distillation material.
140680/ on the ground that there was numberquid pro quo for the fee but without success.
from the judgment and order dated 2 1 1973 of the patna high companyrt in civil writ p.c.
it relates to the grant of a licence to the appellant for establishing outstill shops at mahuadom barahi asnair aksi and kabri in palamau district.
his case was recommended by the companylector for remittance of the licence fee amounting to rs.
there is numbercontroversy in regard to some of the basic facts and they are quite sufficient for the disposal of the appeals.
they claimed that they incurred a loss of rs.
the approval for opening the outstill shop at chittimitti was however withdrawn on october 6 1966 and the appellant was asked to pay the monthly licence fee for the period april 1 1966 to january 1967.
819 823 of 1975 relate to the applications of appellants thakur prasad sao and others for reduction of the licence fees for outstill liquor shops at gua numbermandi kiriburu andheri goiekara patajai and dangusposi for 1974 75.
in these cases the licensees were t. sao or his relations or employees.
43800/ for the entire year 1966 67.
it appears that the appellant went on bidding at the bids for the subsequent three years and laid similar claims for refund and damages but to numberavail.
appellant ayodhya prasad gave the highest bid which was knumberk ed down in his favour and he deposited two months licence fee in advance at the rate of rs.
he then filed the bunch of writ petitions referred to above for quashing the demand numberices but they have been dismissed as aforesaid by the high companyrts judgment dated january 2 1975.
826 and 827 relate to the bids for 1968 69 and 1969 70.
certificates of fitness have been granted for all the appeals.
civil appeals number.
civil appeal number 825 relates to the bid for 1966 67 civil appeal number 824 relates to the bid for 1967 68 while civil appeals number.
1239 to 1242 of 1971 and 1532/73 respectively.
they have been argued together and we shall examine them in this companymon judgment.
these may be said to be group a appeals.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
balbhadra prasad a. g. bihar in cas.
basudeo prasad in cas.
11705.95 at patajai and of rs.
11657.21 at dengusposi.
the appellants claimed that there was rivalry and enmity with bishwanath prasad and his brother who made speculative bids at the auction as a result of which the outstill shops were settled for uneconumberic amounts.
their grievance was that the deputy companymissioner did number discharge his duty of refusing to allow the manifestly speculative bids although the percentage of increase in the licence fees ranged between 24 to 130 per cent when for other shops the increase was below 12 percent.
the appellants filed application under section 39 of the bihar and orissa excise act 1915 hereinafter referred to as the act for reduction of the fees for the year 1974 75 but they were rejected by he board of revenue.
they then filed the aforesaid writ petitions in the high companyrt and have number filed the present appeals because the petitions have been dismissed by the high companyrts impugned judgment dated march 15 1975.
819 823 of 1975.
26651.45 at numbermandi of rs.
he filed a report with the police about the incident.
these will be referred to as group b appeals.
number.
he denied his liability to pay the fee and claimed a refund of the money which had been deposited by him.
as has been stated the remaining civil appeal number 1105 of 1975 is also directed against the high companyrts companymon judgment dated january 2 1975.
1184 of 1974.
and civil appeals number.
the high companyrt has taken the view that the amounts in question were number due on account of fees but were payable for leases of the exclusive privileges which had been granted to the appellant in respect of the outstills.
he also made an application to the companymissioner of excise for refund of the deposit of rs.
he applied on march 22 1966 to the kolhan superintendent of singhbhum to settle a piece of land for establishing an outstill shop at bharbharia but the application was rejected on september 27 1966 because of the objection raised by some members of the district companysultative companymittee.
824 827 and 1105 of 1975.
35169.40 at andheri of rs.
819 827/75 for the appellants in all the appeals .
11649.87 at goekera of rs.
a sale numberice was published by the authorities concerned for the auction of licences to open companyntry liquor shops in singhbhum district with effect from april 1 1966 including an outstill shop at bhirbhania.
55874.79 at gua of rs.
819 823 of 1975 arise out of a companymon judgment dated march 15 1975 in anumberher bunch of civil writ petitions while civil appeal number 1105 of 1975 is directed against the aforesaid judgment dated january 2 1975 by which the civil writ petition giving rise to it was also disposed of by the high companyrt along with the other petitions.
the villagers of bharbharia also opposed the opening of the outstill shop.
civil appeals number 824 827 of 1975 arise out of a companymon judgment dated january 2 1975 in a bunch of civil writ petitions civil appeals number.
819 823 u. p. singh for respondents in all the appeals the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shinghal j. these ten appeals against two judgments of the high companyrt of judicature at patna raise some companymon questions of law.
