G.M. Lodha, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated December 4, 1980 (Annexure III), by which, he has been called upon to deposit Rs. 7085.06. This amount, as per the notice is alleged to be due on account of the excise revenue in relation to his licence of 1975 76 for country-liquor of shop Bamanwas.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no amount is due in the petitioner, and the demand is without authority of law. In addition to it, it was argued that coercive proceedings of attachment and sale have been taken by the Excise Authority, and therefore, he is entitled to claim protection of his property by getting a writ issued from this court under under Article 226 of the constitution.
3. In support of his contention, Mr. Dhankar has placed reliance on AIR 1980 Bom 9, and specially on para 14 of it.
4. The notice expressly mentions that the demand is in relation to 1975-76 liquor licence of Bamnwas. The petitioner received the notice as per the learned Counsel on December 4, 1980. In case he thinks that there is no demand and the notice has been given either due to mistake or on account of high-handedness of the authorities concerned, he should have approached the District Excise Officer, and the Excise Commissioner. Apart from the question whether there in any demand or not can be challenged by a reply and representation before the Excise Authorities, statutory remedies for appeal are also provided under Section 9A of the Rajasthan Excise Act.
5. Under the Rajasthan Excise Act, Section 40 enables the excise authorities to make recoveries of the excise revenue. Section 40 reads as under:
40. Recovery of Excise Revenue.
All Excise revenue including all amounts due to the (State Government) by any person on account of any contract relating to excise revenue may without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered from the person primarily liable to pay the same or from his surety (if any) as arrears of land revenue or in the manner provided for the recovery of public demands by any law for the time being in force. In case of default made by a holder of a licence, the Excise Commissioner (or an Excise Officer duly empowered that behalf) may take the grant for which the licence has been given under management at the risk of the defaulter, or declare the grant forfeited and resell it at the risk and loss of the defaulter. When a grant is under management under this section, the Excise Commissioner (or an Excise Officer duly empowered in that behalf) may recover an excise revenue any moneys due to the defaulter by any lessee or assignee:
Provided that no licence for an exclusive privilege granted under Section 24 shall be forfeited without the sanction of the authority granting the licence.
The Bombay decision is not applicable in view of this.
6. The hot haste, in which, the petitioner has rushed to this court, disentitles him for seeking extraordinary remedy. The fact that attachment proceedings have started as per Annexure-IV on December 7, 1980, should have been all the more reason for the petitioner to immediately approach the District Excise Officer.
7. Even now, the petitioner should approach the District Excise Officer of, the area concerned, in case there is no demand as he has asserted in this writ petition.
8. It is expected therein case the petitioner files a representation to the District Excise Officer he would immediately examine the matter and pass a speaking order about the liability of the petitioner. In case no amount is due, as asserted by the petitioner, it is further expected that the District Excise Officer would immediately take steps to stop the proceedings against the petitioner.
9. With the above observations the writ petitioner is dismissed.