Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46079-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7464 of 2025 Petitioner :- Arvind Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-respondent nos.1 to 5. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following main prayers:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the recovery certificate dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Opposite party no.5 contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 16.01.1997 passed by the Opposite party no.2 contained as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition." 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner alongwith two other persons namely Mata Prasad son of Kalu Ram and Pitamber Singh son of Datadeen, had been allotted a liquor license by the Department of Excise, Sultanpur, for the financial year 1988-89, for a license Fee of Rs.3,10,000/- and Rs.26,000/- as Security amount. The petitioner and the two other co-allottees deposited the said amount. The liquor shop was allotted to the petitioner alongwith the two other persons. The liquor shop was running in losses and the petitioner could not deposit subsequent dues. The Excise Department decided to re-auction the said shop. Re-auction was done in favour of one Arvind Pratap Singh son of Keshari Pratap Singh. The subsequent allottee Arvind Pratap Singh also refused to run the liquor shop as he had suffered a loss of Rs.40,967/-. Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner his two other co-allottees and Shri Arvind Pratap Singh. The demand notice was issued by the Tehsil Authorities in pursuance of such recovery proceedings. There was an order for attachment and auction of immovable property of the petitioner alongwith other persons issued on 30.03.1995. Being aggrieved such order, the petitioner preferred an objection under 285 (i) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules registered as Case No.118-Sultanpur. The said case was disposed of by the Commissioner, vide his conditional order dated 18.09.1996 that in case the petitioner deposits the entire amount as shown in the Recovery Certificate within 12 weeks, then auction of the property in question shall be deemed as cancelled for the purpose. 4. The petitioner deposited Rs.40,967/-. He in fact, deposited the entire dues shown against four persons. Yet, he has received a Notice/ Recovery Certificate on 30.06.2025. When he inquired into the matter it was disclosed by the Tehsil Office that a recovery certificate issued on 16.01.1997. Hence, this petition has been filed. 5. Learned Standing counsel has stated on the basis of documents on record and the instructions sent by District Excise Officer, Sultanpur, that according to provisions of Section 39 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 any deficit / shortfall in the excise revenue shall be recoverable from the original/ Primary licensee as arrears of land revenue. Hence, the total loss of Rs.40,967.70 was recoverable from the petitioner with effect from 13.02.1989. The petitioner paid the outstanding dues on 31.12.1996 pursuant to an order passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, on 18.09.1996. The Recovery Certificate was issued thereafter on 16.01.1997 to the petitioner demanding penal interest to the tune of Rs.58,068/- payable for the period between 13.02.1989 to 31.12.1996 as the original demand was raised on 13.02.1989 and the petitioner had paid the amount only on 31.12.1996. Under Section 38A of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, which is a charging section for the realization of interest of Excise Revenue within the stipulated period of time, such action can be taken. Section 38-A of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 is being quoted hereinbelow:- "38-A Interest on arrears of Excise Revenue--(1) Where any excise revenue has not been paid within three months from the date on which it becomes payable, interest at such rate not exceeding twenty four per cent per annum, as may be prescribed, shall be payable from the date such excise revenue becomes payable till the date of actual payment: Provided that until a higher rate is prescribed, the rate of interest will be eighteen per cent per annum; Provided further that in respect of an excise revenue which became payable before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 1985 interest at the said rate shall be payable from the date of such commencement if the excise revenue is not paid within 3 months of the said date." The aforesaid section was inserted by U.P. Act no.7 of 1985 with effect from 28.03.1985. 6. It has been submitted that in view of the aforesaid amended Section which is operative since 28.03.1985, the Recovery Certificate was issued on 16.01.1997. It has been submitted that the demand notice has been rightly issued as the petitioner has failed to pay. 7. It has also been submitted on the basis of joint inspection report dated 06.10.2021 that the co-allottees/ co-licensee of the petitioner namely Mata Prasad son of Kalu Ram and Pitamber Singh son of Datadeen, had passed away. 8. The instructions are kept on record. 9. In the writ petition we find there is no mention of the co- allottees having passed away. Also it is undisputed that the petitioner along with his two co-allottees had applied for liquor license as a partnership firm where liability is joint and several. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 N.PAL Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench