( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 1 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6444 of 2018 M/s Maa Tarini Natural Resources (P) Limited, having its registered office at 77/1B, P.O. & P.S. –Park Street, Kolkata -700016 through its Authorised Signatory Shri Binod Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Late Baleshwar Yadav, resident of State Bank Colony, P.O. -Hehal, P.S. - Sukhdev Nagar (Pandra O.P.), District -Ranchi -834005. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. –Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. 2. The Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. –Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad, District –Dhanbad. 4. Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited, A Government of Jharkhand Enterprise, having its Head Office at Utpad Bhawan, Ground Floor, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. – Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. …. Respondents With W.P. (C) No. 6455 of 2018 M/s K D Liquors & Fertilizers (P) Limited, having its registered office at 503, N P Centre, New Dak Bunglow Road, P.O. –G.P.O., P.S. – Kotwali, District –Patna -800001 (Bihar) through its Authorized Signatory Shri Lakhan Lal, aged about 57 years, son of Late Badho Lal, resident of Friends Colony, P.O. Hehal, P.S. –Sukhdev Nagar (Pandra O.P.), District –Ranchi -834005. .... Petitioner Versus ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 2 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. –Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. 2. The Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. –Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Hazaribagh, P.S. –Sadar, P.O. & District –Hazaribagh. 4. Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited, A Government of Jharkhand Enterprise, having its Head Office at Utpad Bhawan, Ground Floor, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. – Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. …. Respondents With W.P. (C) No. 6457 of 2018 M/s Kumar Bottlers, a registered partnership firm having its office at Nawatoli, P.O. & P.S. –Daltonganj, District –Palamau through its authorized signatory Shri Jawed Ansari, son of Shri Yakub Ansari, resident of Nawatoli, P.O. & P.S. –Daltonganj, District -Palamau. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. –Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. 2. The Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. –Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Ranchi, P.O. –G.P.O., P.S. – Kotwali, District –Ranchi. 4. Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited, A Government of Jharkhand Enterprise, having its Head Office at Utpad Bhawan, ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 3 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 Ground Floor, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. – Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. …. Respondents With W.P. (C) No. 6461 of 2018 M/s Genuine Bottlers, a registered partnership firm having its office at Saraswati Complex, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. and District –Garhwa, Jharkhand through its Authorised Signatory Shri Surya Narayan Prakash Gupta, Aged about 40 years, son of Shri Harish Chandra Gupta, House No. 3, Road No.1, Birsa Nagar, Hatia Station Road, P.O. –Hatia, P.S. –Jaggarnathpur, District –Ranchi -834003. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. –Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. 2. The Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. –Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Ranchi, P.O. –G.P.O., P.S. – Kotwali, District –Ranchi. 4. Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited, A Government of Jharkhand Enterprise, having its Head Office at Utpad Bhawan, Ground Floor, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. – Gonda, P.O. –G.P.O., District –Ranchi. …. Respondents P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate (Through V.C.) : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 4 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA : Ms. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG-IA : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA : Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. All these Writ Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which involves similar issues and the respondents of all the writ petitions are the same, hence all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. W.P.(C) No. 6444 of 2018 has been filed with the prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.12.2018 as contained in Letter No. 2081, passed by the respondent no.2 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,75,250.00/- within seven days, being the loss of revenue for failure on the part of the petitioner to supply 76,400 LPL (London Proof Litre) of country liquor, failing which the loss of revenue shall be recovered from the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner and the consequential reliefs. 4. 4. W.P.(C) No. 6455 of 2018 has been filed with the prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.12.2018 as contained in Letter No. 2080, passed by the respondent no.2 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.67,09,259.20/- within seven days, being the loss of revenue for failure on the part of the petitioner to supply 51,396.80 LPL ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 5 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 (London Proof Litre) of spiced country liquor, failing which the loss of revenue shall be recovered from the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner and the consequential reliefs. 5. W.P.(C) No. 6457 of 2018 has been filed with the prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.12.2018 as contained in Letter No. 2078, passed by the respondent no.2 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,17,36,600.00/- within seven days, being the loss of revenue for failure on the part of the petitioner to supply 1,54,560 LPL (London Proof Litre) of country liquor, failing which the loss of revenue shall be recovered from the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner and the consequential reliefs. 6. W.P.(C) No. 6461 of 2018 has been filed with the prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.12.2018 as contained in Letter No. 2079, passed by the respondent no.2 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,54,44,800.00/- within seven days, being the loss of revenue for failure on the part of the petitioner to supply 118300.00 LPL (London Proof Litre) of spiced country liquor, failing which the loss of revenue shall be recovered from the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner and the consequential reliefs. 7. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the petitioners of these writ petitions are the different companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. All the petitioners in pursuance to the Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T.), inviting application for grant of ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 6 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 exclusive privilege for manufacture and wholesale supply of country liquor in bottles/sachets for the period from 1st October, 2014 to 31st March, 2018 were declared successful in tendering process and were granted exclusive privilege by the respondent no.2 for manufacture and supply of country liquor to the Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited. It is the undisputed case of the petitioners that as per 10 (Ka) of the N.I.T., the petitioners were supposed to keep required stock and in case because of failure to maintain the minimum stock, if the petitioners fails to supply the country liquor, or impediment is caused in supply of country liquor to the retail sellers, then the revenue loss occasioned by such failure will be realized from the petitioners, who have been referred to as Thekedar (Contractor) and the same can be realized by enforcement of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners. It is the further case of the petitioners that because of the failure on the part of the respondent no.4 to ensure payments of country liquor supplied to it, the petitioners suffered acute shortage of working capital, hence the petitioners wrote several letters to the respondent no.4 for early release of the dues payable to the petitioners by the respondent no.4. It is the further case of the petitioners that in view of the Jharkhand Excise (Regulations of Retail Liquor Shops through the Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited) Rules, 2017, promulgated on 14th July, 2017 and by virtue of Rule 26 of Jharkhand Excise (Regulations of Retail Liquor Shops ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 7 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 through the Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited) Rules, 2017, the requirement of Minimum Guarantee Quota (MGQ) which was fixed for each retail liquor shop was withdrawn. The petitioners were required to enter into an agreement with the respondent no.4 but the said agreement or its copy has not been filed by the petitioners in any of these writ petitions; for the reasons best known to the petitioners. It is next contended by the petitioners that adequate quantity of liquor was available, at any given point of time and none of the retail shops ever became dry due to non-availability of the country liquor. Under such circumstances, the act of the respondent no.2 in demanding money from the petitioners towards revenue loss occasioned to the respondent no.1 because of the failure to supply the adequate quantity of country liquor as required and demanded by the respondent no.4 is unfair, unjust and unreasonable. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.K. Shah Engineers & Contractors Vs. State of M.P. and other cases, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 594, in para -17 of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the party at fault cannot be permitted to plead non-performance of prerequisite obligation, so as to exclude the applicability and operation of the arbitration clause. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 8 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law in para-16 that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong, to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is next submitted that in para-14 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to its own Judgment in the case of Mrutunjay Pani Vs. Narmada Bala Sasmal, resported in AIR 1961 SC 1353 wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that where an obligation is cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation and they learned senior counsel submits that as in this case, the failure to supply the required amount of country liquor by the petitioners was because of the fault of the respondent no. 4, so the petitioners cannot be held liable to pay the huge sum of money under headings like duty, excise transportation duty and VAT besides license fees; when the petitioners being the manufacturer and supplier of liquor are not liable to pay such tax for the quantity of country liquor which was never manufactured or supplied by it. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, drawing attention of this Court to clause-7 of the N.I.T. that there is a provision in the said clause that the Thekedar (Contractor) will receive the selling price of the country liquor supplied by it to the respondent no.4 ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 9 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 by the respondent no.4 through bank draft directly. Hence, it is submitted that in view of this clause, the petitioners are not liable to pay the revenue loss claimed by the respondent no.2 of the respective writ petitions, as the same occurred for the fault of the respondent no.4 but no fault of the petitioners. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that since no notice of show-cause was ever issued to the petitioners before raising the payment of revenue loss, the same amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore, on this score also, the demand of the revenue loss is bad in law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in these writ petitions be allowed. 9. Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in all these writ petitions. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that this is a clear case of contractual obligation of the petitioners under an agreement which for reasons best known to it has been withhold by the petitioners from this Court. 10. The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jage Ram & Ors., reported in (1980) 3 SCC 599, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India following its own decision in the case of Har Shankar and Others Vs. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissoner and Others, reported ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 10 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 in (1975) 1 SCC 737 has held that the High Court was in error in entertaining the writ petitions for the purpose of examining whether the respondents could avoid their contractual liability by challenging the rules under which the bids offered by them were accepted and under which they became entitled to conduct their business. 11. It is next submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the case of State of Orissa and Others Vs. Narain Prasad and Others, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 740 in para -21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that a person who enters into certain contractual obligations with his eyes open and works the entire contract, cannot be allowed to turn round and question the validity of those obligations or the validity of The Rules which constitute the terms of the contract and further went on to observe that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, which is of a discretionary nature and is exercised only to advance the interests of justice, cannot certainly be employed to the aid of such persons as neither justice nor equity is in their favour. It is further submitted that in the case of State of Orissa and Others Vs. Narain Prasad and Others (supra) in para-36, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in those cases the writ petitioners having entered into agreements voluntarily, containing the conditions and having done business, under the licenses obtained by them, they cannot be allowed to either wriggle out of the agreements nor can they be allowed to challenge the validity ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 11 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 of the Rules which constitute the terms of the contract and thus High Court should not have exercised its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in aid of such licensees. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General further relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Har Shankar and Others Vs. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissoner and Others (supra) in para-22 of which it was held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligations voluntarily incurred. 13. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners having participated in the tender in response to the N.I.T. and having been granted the privilege of manufacturing and supplying country liquor and having supplied also, the same has ended in a concluded agreement between the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and the petitioners of each of the writ petitions. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that under such concluded agreement, the petitioners of each of the writ petitions were under an obligation to pay the revenue loss that occasioned to the respondent nos. 1 & 2 for their failure to supply country liquor to the respondent no.4. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the respondent no.4 asked the petitioners of each of the writ petitions to make the supply on several times, the number ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 12 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 of times of which has been mentioned in each of the demands made by the respondent no.2 of each of the writ petitions separately but the petitioners failed to supply the same. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners having not manufactured and supplied the country liquor, are not liable to pay the duties and taxes on different heads, is fallacious because the revenue loss is calculated on the basis of the revenue that would have accrued to the State, had the petitioners supplied the country liquor as demanded by the respondent no.4. Hence, it is submitted that there is neither any discrepancy nor any illegality nor any error in calculation of the revenue loss occasioned to the State for the failure of the petitioners to supply the demanded quantity of liquor; which the petitioners were under the obligation to maintain, as per clause 10(ka) of the N.I.T. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that Rule 26 of the Jharkhand Excise (Regulations of Retail Liquor Shops through the Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited) Rules, 2017 is applicable to shops and not to the manufacturer and supplier of liquor under a privilege, hence the same can in no way come to the aid of the petitioners, in justifying the non-supply of the demanded quantity of country liquor by the respondent no.4. It is next submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that besides the N.I.T., the condition of exclusive privilege order which has been annexed to the writ petitions by the petitioners ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 13 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 themselves and which can be termed as work order also and clause 11 of the same also mandates that minimum stock is to be maintained by the petitioners and in case of their failure to supply the amount of country liquor demanded by the respondent no.4, the loss of revenue will be realized from the Thekedar (Contractor) by enforcing the bank guarantee. It is next submitted that the same condition is also there in clause-10 (Ka) of the license. It is further submitted that since the petitioners have entered into the concluded agreement with the respondent with their eyes open and without demur and have not imposed a condition that they will be liable to defray the revenue loss occasioned to the State because of their failure to supply the country liquor as demanded by the respondent no.4, if and only if the respondent no.4 pays their dues promptly; certainly by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are not entitled to take a plea that even though there is no covenant to that effect in the agreement, which the petitioners entered into with their eyes open culminating in a concluded agreement, they will not pay the contractual dues. It is next submitted that the writ petitions are nothing but an effort to wriggle out of the agreement by hook or crook which in view of the settled principle of law, is liable to be dismissed. It is then submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the contention of the petitioners that no notice was served upon them was fallacious because there is an admission in para-15 of the writ ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 14 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 petition that the petitioners were directed to show-cause within a week as to why not on failure to supply as per demand, loss of revenue be not recovered from bank guarantee. So, the admission in writing in this respect in this writ petition being there in the record, it is not open for the counsel of the petitioners to take a contrary stand that the petitioner was not served any show-cause notice and thereby there is violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that in para-16 of the writ petition, the petitioners do not dispute that they failed to supply the demanded amount but has taken a plea that none of the shops went dry. It is next submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the covenant of the concluded agreement is not that the respondents will be liable to realize loss from the petitioners, if the shops went dry, rather, the covenant is that the respondents will be entitled to realize the loss of revenue occasioned to the State from the petitioners, if the petitioners failed to supply the demanded amount of liquor by the respondent no.4. Hence, on this score also, the contention of the petitioners that the shops never went dry is irrelevant, so far as the demand for loss of revenue is made. Hence, it is submitted that these writ petitions being without any merit be dismissed. 14. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the contention of the petitioners regarding the settled principle of law that the party at fault cannot ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 15 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 be permitted to set up the bar of non-performance of pre- requisites obligation is concerned, here in the facts of this case, it is crystal clear that the petitioners entered into a concluded agreement with the respondent nos. 1 & 2 by responding to the N.I.T. floated by the respondent nos. 1 & 2. There is concluded agreement between each of the writ petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 & 2. There is no fault on the part of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 alleged in any of these writ petitions, to avoid payment of the demanded amount. There was no condition in the concluded agreement, resulted from the petitioners responding to the N.I.T., that the Respondent-State will only be entitled to realize the loss of revenue occasioned to the State, only if the respondent no.4 pays the due of the petitioners promptly. In the absence of any such covenant, the petitioners having entered into a concluded contract with the respondent nos. 1 & 2 with their eyes open, this Court is of the considered view that certainly, the petitioners cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the concluded agreement on a ground which is not part of the agreement and which is align to the concluded agreement. 15. So far as the contention of the petitioners regarding the Jharkhand Excise (Regulations of Retail Liquor Shops through the Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited) Rules, 2017 is concerned, the same is irrelevant, so far as the transaction and subject matter of these writ petitions are concerned, because the same relates to shops and not manufacturer and supplier of ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 16 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 country liquor under privilege and license and the petitioners are manufacturer and supplier of country liquor under privilege and license but not the owner of shops and certainly the same cannot absolve the petitioners of their liability under the concluded agreement. 16. 16. So far as the contention of the petitioners that no show-cause was issued to them is concerned, as has rightly been mentioned by the learned Additional Advocate General, that in para-15 of the writ petitions there has been a categorical admission of the writ petitioners themselves that they were served with show-cause notice, hence this Court is of the considered view that there is no force and substance in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that there is violation of principle of natural justice, because no show cause was issued to the petitioners, before being called upon to pay the revenue loss occasioned to the state. 17. So far as the contention of the petitioners regarding various duties and taxes are concerned, they are calculated on the basis of the revenue that would have accrued to the State, had the petitioners supplied the demanded quantity of country liquor by the respondent no.4, in terms of the covenant of the concluded agreement between the parties. So, had there been such supply, the revenue under each head as mentioned in the demand order passed by the respondent no.2 would have accrued to the State. Thus, on this score also, this court do not find any illegality. ( 2025:JHHC:22988 ) 17 W.P. (C) No.6444 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6455 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6457 of 2018 With W.P. (C) No.6461 of 2018 18. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no merit in each of the writ petitions warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Thus, these writ petitions being without any merit are dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 29th July, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-