JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to sell the remaining liquor which is about 11,857 litres at least till May, 2004 which is lying unsold in the petitioner's sub-shop, and 3050 litres which is to be taken for the year 2003-04 and to be sold.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the petitioner is running the main shop of country made liquor at Sharda Nagar, District-Saharanpur. He was granted licence for the year 2002-03 which was renewed for the Excise Year 2003-04 under the U.P. Excise Act and Rules.
4. It is alleged in para 5 of the petition that the petitioner applied for a licence of a sub-shop on 14.1.2003 to the District Excise Officer, Saharanpur who asked for a report from the Inspector vide order dated 14.1.2003 (vide Annexure-1 to the petition). The Inspector submitted his report (vide Annexure-2 to the petition). Thereafter the petitioner was granted licence for a sub-shop vide order dated 4.4.2003, and the aforesaid temporary licence was valid upto 15.5.2003 (vide Annexure-3 to the petition).
5. It is alleged in para 9 of the petition that the petitioner's sub-shop was illegally closed on 1.5.2003. It is alleged in para 10 of the petition that as many as 54 sub-shops are still running and it is the petitioner's sub-shop alone which has been illegally closed inspite of a valid licence till 15.5.2003.
6. It is alleged in par 12 of the petition that no objection or complaint was made against the petitioner's sub-shop. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order closing down of her sub-shop (vide Annexure-6 to the petition). It is alleged that the said appeal is still pending.
7. It is alleged in para 20 that on account of illegal closure of the petitioners sub-shop, 8807 litres of liquor are still lying in the petitioner's sub-shop to be sold as well as 3050 litres of liquor for the year 2003-04 i.e. total of 11,857 litres.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same.
9. In paragraph 3 (c) and (d) it is stated that the petitioner was granted licence for the year 2003-04 for Shardanagar country liquor shop only. The petitioner has lifted the entire quantity during the year 2003-04. However, on the request of the petitioner and as a matter of concession to him he was permitted to run a sub-shop at Bajoria Road Bandh Phatak till 15.5.2003 only. On the expiry of the aforesaid period the permission granted automatically came to an end and as such the petitioner had no right to run the shop thereafter. There is no question of cancellation of permission as to period came to an end automatically by efflux of time. It is stated that the appeal of the petitioner was wholly misconceived. In para 8 it is stated that the respondents never interfered with the running of the shop till 15.5.2003.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied Rule 18 of the U.P. Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002, copy of which is Annexure-CA-3 to the counter affidavit. Rule 18 of the Rules states:-
"Entire quantity of country liquor lifted by the licensee during the year shall have to be sold during the validity of his licence and the licensee shall not permitted to sell it after expire of the licence. Any balance of country liquor quantity found outstanding and unsold at the expiry of term of licence shall be declared by the licensee to the Licensing Authority on the next day, and shall be returned by him to the concerned wholesale shop(s) of the district by 5:00 p.m. of the next date if expiry of licence. The licensee shall be entitled to get the refund of cost price only, excluding excise duty and other taxes. The disposal of such stock shall be made by the whole-sale licensee as per orders of the Excise Commissioner in this regard."
11. A perusal of Rule 18 and the condition no. 22 of the licence shows that if any quantity of liquor has not been sold during the period of validity of the licence the licensee cannot sell it after expiry of the licence. Any balance of country liquor quantity found outstanding and unsold of the end of the excise year has to be declared by the licensee to the Licensing Authority and shall be returned by him to the concerned whole-sale shop of the district. The licensee is entitled to get the refund of the cost price.
12. It has been alleged by the respondents that the petitions applied only for Shardanagar country liquor shop with minimum guaranteed quantity of 42,000 BL, and the same was grafted to him during the year 2003-04. The petitioner was granted permission for a limited period upto 15.5.2003 for opening a sub-shop, which is evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. This period expired by efflux of time. The petitioner was not entitled to run the sub-shop after 15.5.2003. Her allegation that she was not allowed to run the sub-shop after 1.5.2003 has bee denied by the respondents.
13. We have also perused the rejoinder affidavit.
14. On the facts of the case we find no merit in this petition. Rule 18 clearly provides that if any stock of country liquor is unsold at the end of the period of the licence the licensee has to return the said quantity of unsold liquor to the concerned whole-seller. The period of licence of the petitioner for the year 2003-04 was from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 to lift and sell minimum guaranteed quantity of 42,000 BL within the aforesaid period. Condition No. 22 of the licence read with Rule 18 of the Rules clearly shows that the petitioner voluntarily, and with is eyes wide open to the terms and conditions, applied for the said licence.
15. In the excise year 2004-05 the applications were invited as per policy decision taken by the State Government for settlement of licences of the country liquor shop by renewal on fresh terms and conditions and for a different minimum guaranteed quantity.
16. In Hari Shankar v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, AIR 1975 S.C. 1121 (vide paras 21 and 22) the Supreme Court has observed that a writ petition does not lie to facilitate avoidance of obligations voluntarily incurred. Hence a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for impeaching contractual obligations. As regards the factual controversy whether the petitioner was allowed to run the sub-shop after 1.5.2003 writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving this.
17. It is well settled that no one has a fundamental right to trade in liquor vide Har Shankar v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (supra) and other decisions. The grant of licence is governed by the Rules and the terms of the contract. The licence time bound for one year. Under Rule 2 (i) of the excise year means the financial year commencing lst April to 31st March of the next year. Hence on expiry of the aforesaid period no grounds remain with the petitioner. Thus there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.