D.P. Gupta, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has contended that the amount of money sought to be recovered from him as a licensee and vendor of liquor is nothing else but excise-duty on the quantity of unlisted liquor which could not have been charged from the petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner failed to fulfil the contract and could not lift the liquor as provided for in the contract. All the questions which have been raised in this writ petition stand finally concluded by the decision of this Court in Bal Mukund v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 430 of 1971 decided on May 9, 1974. The aforesaid decision of this Court has been up held and confirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pannalal and Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : 1SCR219 .
2. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pannalal's case (supra) that the contractual obligation of the liquor contractor to pay the stipulated amount is dependent on the quantum of liquor lifted or sold by him, which is relevant only for the purpose of remission to be earned by him under the licence. As a matter of fact, no excise-duty was charged or chargeable on undrawn liquor under the licensors under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 and the Rules made thereunder. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that the lump sum stipulated under the agreement is not to be enquated with the issue price payable only when the contractor takes delivery of a particular quantity of specified value of country Liquor. The issue price relates only to liquor drawn by the contractor and does not pertain to undrawn liquor. The excise-duty component of the issue price is, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, a measure of the quantity of or extent of the concession or remission to be given to the liquor contractor out of the stipulated amount of exclusive privilege allowed by the State to the contractor. Thus, the amount of money sought to be recovered from the petitioner either under the exclusive privileges stem or under the guarantee system, has nothing to do with excise duty and there is no levy of excise duty in enforcing the payment of the guaranteed sum or the stipulated lump sum for the exclusive privilege. In essence what is sought to be recovered from the petitioner is the short fall on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to fulfil the terms of his contract.
3. After the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pannalal's case (supra), no other argument survives in the present Writ petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is also an allegation that the petitioner could not sell the stipulated quantity of liquor because the respondents were unable to supply the same. This bold & vague allegation advanced by the petitioner cannot be accepted, more particularly in view of the specific denial thereof on behalf of the respondents, who have stated that liquor was not supplied to the petitioner as he did hot deposit any amount for obtaining the delivery of liquor and that it was incorrect that the liquor could not be purchased by the petitioner because of no availability thereof. The petitioner has not produced any cogent material in support of his aforesaid allegation, which ought to fail on ace Hint of absence of proof and in view of the clear denial in respect thereof by the respondents.
5. There is, therefore, on substance in this writ petition & the same is dismissed.