Statement of facts for filing counter affidavit in C.W.J. C No………………..

/2021, Kameshwar Prasad

Versus The State of Bihar & others on behalf of the respondent no. 3 to 6 are as follows:-

1. That the instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the
order dated 08-02-2019 / 22-07-2021 passed by the respondent no. 6 in Certificate Case No
02/2015-16 were ordered to be issued for recovery of due amount of Rs 4,37,970/-.
2. That the facts in brief as indicated in the present writ petition is that for financial year 2014-
15, 3 shops of portable foreign liquor under Nagar Parishad, Hilsa were settled to the
petitioner from the date of license 01-04-14 to March 2015 vide license no. 53/01 on
monthly license fee Rs 1,45,990/- per shop total license fee of Rs 4,37,970/-.
3. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner has been issued 3 vide License 29/01,
52/01, 53/01 respectively. For License No. 29/01 on monthly License fee of Rs 3,16,800/- *2
= total for two shops comes to Rs 6,33,600/- + Rs 78,030 for one shop and total comes to Rs
7,11,630/. For Vide License no. 52 /01 on monthly license fee Rs 1,45,990/- per shop total
license fee of Rs 4,37,970/- and for vide license no. 53/01 on monthly license fee Rs
1,45,990/- per shop total license fee of Rs 4,37,970/-.
A photocopy of the letter no 434 dated
10/02/2016 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure A
4. That It is relevant to mention here that it is wrongly mentioned in the present writ petition
that vide License No. 53/01 for the monthly license fee of Rs 3,16,800/- *2 = total for two
shops comes to Rs 6,33,600/- + Rs 78,030 for one shop and total comes to Rs 7,11,630/-
instead of monthly license fee Rs 1,45,990/- per shop total license fee of Rs 4,37,970/-.
5. It is relevant to mention here that as per agreement made in between the petitioner and the
representative of the department license fee of one month as advance at the time of
settlement and monthly license fee from April 2014 to Feb 2015 on first day of every month
has to be deposited by the petitioner.
A photocopy of the agreement for license no. 53/01
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure B.

6. That it is pertinent to mention here that as per agreement the petitioner deposited license
fee for one month in advance and the surety amount equal to the license fee for one month.
Subsequently the petitioner deposited the monthly license fee for 3 shops under group no
53/01 till Nov 2014 and thereafter he failed to deposit the license fee of Dec 2014 and
January 2015 as a result of which by the order dated 31.01.15 passed by the respondent
no.04 the petitioner’s license was cancelled.
A photocopy of the order dated 31.01.15 passed by
the respondent no.04 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure C.

7. That it may not be out of place to mention here that the advance license fee deposited by
the petitioner worth Rs 4,38,000/- was adjusted in license fee for the month of Dec 2014
and the license fee for the month of January 2015 remained due against the petitioner
which has to be deposited by the petitioner but even after the demand made by the
Respondent No.3 he could not deposited the same.
8. That It is made clear here that on the basis of requisition submitted by the respondent no.3
certificate case No 02/2015-16 was initiated under P.D.R Act for recovery of Rs 4,37,970/- as
the amount of license fee for the month of January 2015. Thereafter the notice u/s 07 of the
P.D.R. Act was issued against the petitioner for filing showcause vide notice number 245
dated 01.03.2016 and notice number 817 dated 31.07.2018 and then the petitioner sought
time for filing showcause but even after providing sufficient time when showcause could not
be filed on behalf of the petitioner then on the petition of requisitioning officer Bailable
warrant against the petitioner for recovery of the due amount was ordered to be issued by
the respondent no. 6 vide order dated 08.02.19/22721.
9. That it is relevant to mention here that earlier C.W.J.C 20039/2018 was filed before the
Hon’ble Court on behalf of the petitioner which was disposed of vide order dated
29.10.2018 giving liberty to the petitioner to file objection u/s 09 of the P.D.R Act 1914 with
condition that in case such objection is filed within the period of six weeks from today, the
certificate officer is directed to consider the same and pass the final order in certificate
proceeding. It was clarified by the Hon’ble court that in case if no such objection is filed
certificate officer shall proceed ex parte.
A photocopy of order dated 29-10-2018 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure D .
10. That as a matter of fact even after direction of the Hon’ble Court the petitioner didn’t take
trouble to file objection u/s 9 of P.D.R Act in certificate proceeding which goes to show that
he has no regard to the order/direction of the Hon’ble Court. It is also made clear here that
the order passed in certificate proceeding on 22.07.21 for issuance of Bailable warrant
against the petitioner after more than 2 years and 9 months from the order dated
29.08.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Court and hence there is no violation of the order passed
by the Hon’ble court on the part of answering deponents rather the serious violation of
direction was committed by the petitioner for not submitting objection petition.
11. That It is relevant to mention here that it is wrongly mentioned in the present writ petition
that shop of the petitioner was closed from January 2015 on account of announcement of
the Govt. of Bihar regarding full prohibition of wine in the State of Bihar. As a matter of fact
full prohibition in the state of Bihar was announced and enforced since 05.04.2016.
12. That the statements made in paragraph 1 & 2 of the writ petition related to the grievances
and questions of the law formulated by the petitioner have to be considered by the Hon’ble
Court require no comment.
13. That the statements made in Paragraph 3 & 4 of the writ petition require no comments.
14. That the statements made in Paragraph 5 to 13 of the writ petition related to the matter of
records and the facts as stated above in earlier paragraphs require no further comments.
15. That the statements made in Paragraph 14 & 15 of the writ petition require no comments.
16. That in view of facts as stated here in above this writ petition has got no merit and is fit to be
dismissed.
Superintendent of Police,
Nalanda