Manoj vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hanuman Prasad Nawandhar Vs. State and Ors. (SBCWP No.7103/2016) decided on 9.7.2018 wherein it has been held as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Facts in brief, essential and relevant for disposal of the writ petition are noted hereinbelow.

The respondent department invited applications for issuance of licence for retail shops of country-made liquor in the year 2014. The petitioner appears to have made up his mind for applying in the process and accordingly, he deposited an application fee of Rs.1,02,000/- with six e-challans with the respondent District Excise Officer, Jodhpur as detailed below :-

S.No.

Challan No.

Date

Amount

1

1214861

13.02.2014

Rs.17000/-

2

1214791

13.02.2014

Rs.17000/-

3

1214954

13.02.2014

Rs.17000/-

4

1214951

13.02.2014

Rs.17000/-

5

1214945

13.02.2014

Rs.17000/-

6

1214938

13.02.2014

Rs.17000/

Total

Rs.1,02,000/-

However, it appears that after depositing the amounts in question, the petitioner seems to have decided not to go ahead with the application process and admittedly, did not file any application for grant of the retail shop licence/licences. Thereafter, he moved an application to the District Excise Officer, Jodhpur for refund of the amount deposited by him under misconception. Such application was rejected by the order Annex.8 dated 14.07.2014 on the ground that the application fee is not refundable as per the terms and conditions of allotment prevalent in the department.

This court, while considering the writ petition, upon being apprised of the fact that the petitioner never filed any application after depositing earnest money and feeling prima facie satisfied that he could not be treated to be an applicant, directed the competent authority to pass a fresh order in this behalf.

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, has during course of argument, placed on record a copy of the order dated 05.07.2018, by which the petitioner's prayer has presumably been rejected on the ground that it is not possible as per the guidelines of the department to refund the application fee.

Manifestly, while taking this decision, the competent authority failed to consider the fact that no application was ever filed by the petitioner in the prescribed proforma or otherwise in continuity with the deposit of the money in above terms. Thus, it is to be presumed that the above amount which seems not have been deposited by the petitioner with the department in connection with any licence allotment process is just being held in trust because neither was any process undertaken by the department regarding the petitioner's money nor was any charge created thereupon. The Excise Department is simply a trustee of the amount deposited by the petitioner, which has to be refunded upon being demanded. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annex.8 dated 14.07.2014 is set aside. However, it is made clear that the petitioner, who himself at his own risk deposited the amount with the Excise Department, will not be entitled to claim any interest thereupon. The original amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.

No order as to costs."

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hanuman Prasad Nawandhar(supra).