In the circumstances, the petition filed by him was incompetent and was rightly rejected.
There is a companyntry liquor shop in Dumka Town.
They succeeded in the said proceedings and the orders of the said tribunal were in their favour.
The facts giving rise to this appeal maybe briefly stated.
One Bhagwan Rajak, who was number an applicant before the Deputy Commissioner, filed an application before the Commissioner alleging that there should have been a fresh advertisement for the settlement of the shop according to cl.
13 of r.101 of the Excise Manual Vol.
The result of the said proceedings is that the appellants licence was cancelled and the Deputy Commissioner was.
Meanwhile one Basantilal Bhagat filed an application under Art.
After the expiry of the period of the said licence, it was renewed in his favour for 1962.
On September 11, 1961, the appellant furnished security and the shop was settled on him and a licence was issued in his name.
III and on March 13, 1962, the Commissioner allowed his application and directed the Deputy Commissioner to take steps for a fresh settlement of the shop in accordance with rules.
directed to hold a fresh settlement giving a pre ferential treatment to Phudan Manjhi.
The appellant filed a petition under Art.
On June 19, 1961, one Phudan Manjhi, son of Jadu Manjhi, filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner for substituting his name in the place of his father on the basis of the lot drawn in favour of his father.
460 of 1962.
Originally one Hari Prasad Sah was the licensee of that shop, but his licence was cancelled by the Excise Authorities.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 3, 1962, of the Patna High Court in Misc.
P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agamola, for the respondents.
II, would apply to the facts of his case.
Thereupon a numberice was issued inviting applications for the settlement of the shop, One Jadu Manjhi, along with others, applied or the licence.
That order was made on July 3, 1962 and the special leave petition was filed on July 18, 1962.
The petition filed by Hari Prasad Sah was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on July 13, 1961.
586 of 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Against the said orders the appellant filed petitions before the Board of Revenue and the said Board, by its order dated May 30, 1962, dismissed the petitions and directed that t unless the Deputy Commissioner came to a definite companyclusion that Phudan Manjhi was unfit to hold the licence, he should be selected as a licensee in accordance with r. 145 of the Excise Manual, Vol.
On July, 13, 1961, the Board of Revenue dismissed the petition filed by Hari Prasad Sah.
and the draw was in favour of Jadu Manjhi.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, Jagat Narain Prasad Sinha and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
Judical Case No.
On March 22, 1961, for the settlement of the shop lots were drawn by the Deputy Commissioner, Santal Parganas.,
But Hari Prasad against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, before the Commissioner of the Santal Parganas and as it was dismissed, he moved the Board of Revenue, Bihar, and obtained a stay of the settlement of the said shop.
Hari Prasad Sah filed a petition in the revenue companyrt and obtained a stay of the settlement of the shop in favour of the appellant.
Jadu Manjhi died and when the fact was brought to the numberice of the Deputy Commissioner, he decided to hold a fresh lot on June 19, 1961 and the lot was drawn in favour of the appellant.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order or the High Court of Judicature at Patna rejecting in limine an application for a writ of certiorari filed under Art.
It is represented to us that pursuant to the orders of the Board of Revenue the Deputy Commissioner made an enquiry, came to the companyclusion that Phudan Manjhi was number fit to be selected for the grant of a licence, and that he has number yet made a fresh settlement in view of the pendency of the present appeal.
Even in the special leave petition the said two parties were number impleaded.
The Deputy Commissioner rejected the application and Phudan Manjhi preferred in appeal against that order to the Commissioner of Excise and the Commissioner remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner to companysider the fitness of Phudan Manjhi to get the licence and to companysider whether the provisions of r. 145 of the Excise Manual, Vol.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Patna and obtained an interim stay but he withdrew his application on September 8, 1961.
October 19.
