1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This order will dispose of two civil petitions, namely, C. P. No, 159 of 1976, and C. P. No, 282 of 1976, because the questions falling for determination in both of them are the same.
2. ' The petitioners in these petitions were licensees for the sale of Bhang in Multan. Bhang Venda was auctioned in their favour for the year 1974-75, since they were the highest bidders in the auction.
3. The bid of the petitioners in C. P. No, 159 of 1976, was Rs, 64,000 while the bid of the petitioners in C. P.
4. No, 282 of 1976, was Rs, 17,000. The petitioners in the first-mentioned petition deposited Rs, 11,000 as an advance money which amount represented two months licence fee and was liable to be adjusted towards the last two instalments of the year whereas the petitioners in the second petition deposited Rs, 3,000 in advance and the remaining amount of Rs, 14,000 was to be deposited in ten equal monthly instalments. The petitioners in both the cases did not pay the monthly instalments in time with the result that their licences for the sale of Bhang were cancelled, the amount paid in advance was forfeited and they were also black-listed. The orders in both the cases were challenged by separate writ petitions in the Lahore High Court. These were partly accepted in that the orders of back-listing were set aside. However, the orders regarding forfeiture of the amount paid in advance were not interfered with. These two petitions are directed against the judgment of the High Court passed in the above two writ petitions.
5. ' So far as the relief against cancellation of the licences was concerned that has become academic as the licence period has long since expired.
6. Mr. Zia Mahmood Mirza has frankly conceded before U.S that the only plea available to him and which he can now press is regarding the refund of the amount paid as advance by the petitioners.
7. ' However, apart from the fact that the amount is, apparently, liable A to be forfeited under section 40 of the Punjab Excise Act, the question whether the amount paid in advance already stands adjusted against the period for which the licence was actually availed of is a matter for scrutiny.
8. These are, therefore, not fit cases for interference which are dismissed hereby.