2026:JHHC:14547 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1552 of 2020 ------ Birendra Yadav, son of Suresh Yadav, resident of Village & P.O. Navdiha, P.S. Navdiha Bazar, District Palamu, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, 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 Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, P.O. & P.S. Palamu, District Palamu. 4. The Superintendent of Excise, P.O. & P.S. Palamu, District Palamu. 5. The Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited, Ground Floor, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O.-G.P.O., District Ranchi, through its Managing Director. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate ------ 10/ 11.05.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund the unutilized Excise Transport Duty (ETD) and Excise Duty (ED) realized for the months of October and November, 2019 amounting to Rs.20,76,138.27 and Rs.3,66,368.00 respectively, on account of failure of the respondents to ensure supply of Country liquor, as per the prescribed quota, for which ETD and ED had been recovered from the petitioner; 2026:JHHC:14547 2 (ii) To hold and declare that if the respondents under the rules make it obligatory to deposit minimum Excise Revenue in advance on the basis of the quota of liquor which has been prescribed, the respondents have a corresponding obligation to ensure supply of liquor, failing which the respondents are bound to refund the Excise revenue viz ETD and ED recovered from the petitioner." 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. The petitioner is a retail liquor licensee. His grievance is that the respondents have failed to supply the Country liquor for two months i.e. October and November, 2019, in terms with the prescribed quota. He accordingly prays to refund the amount of Excise Transport Duty (ETD) and Excise Duty (ED), which have been recovered from the petitioner, for the aforesaid period. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are not refunding the amount of ETD and ED, recovered from him, in spite of admitting the fact of non-supply of the liquor, for these two months, which is evident from the averments made in the Counter Affidavit itself. 5. The defence of the respondents is that the petitioner did not inform about the fact of non-supply on 10th day of every month. 6. The aforesaid plea of the respondent - State is absolutely not acceptable. When admittedly, the State has not supplied the material, they cannot take the plea that the petitioner 2026:JHHC:14547 3 has not informed them about such non-supply. Be it noted that the fact of not supplying the material is admitted by the State. 7. The fact of non-supply of material once admitted by the State, nothing can come in the way of the State to refund the amount to the petitioner. Withholding the same will amount to unjust enrichment, which should not be allowed, that too, at the behest of the State. 8. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, within three weeks. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed, with the cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid to the petitioner. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 11th May, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 16.05.2026