2015 (3) TMI 1032 - HC - Indian Laws

Suspension of license - retail sale of country liquor - Held that - Following decision of Smt. Babita Rai v. State of U.P. and others in 2010 (12) TMI 1120 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - Gorakh Nath v. State of U.P. and others 1996 (10) TMI 473 - SUPREME COURT - No merit in appeal - Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order dated 15.7.2014.
2. Impact of the order dated 15.7.2014 on the petitioner's license for the Excise Year 2014-15.
3. Legality of the renewal of the petitioner's license in light of the respondent no.5's successful appeal.
4. Petitioner's locus standi to challenge the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order Dated 15.7.2014:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 15.7.2014, which set aside the cancellation of respondent no.5's license. The court noted that the respondent no.5 had successfully appealed against the cancellation of her license through statutory authorities, resulting in the impugned order. The court upheld the validity of the impugned order, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Gorakh Nath v. State of U.P., which established that once a canceled license is restored, any subsequent license granted is deemed provisional and comes to an end by operation of law.

2. Impact of the Order Dated 15.7.2014 on the Petitioner's License for the Excise Year 2014-15:
The court highlighted that the petitioner's license was obtained with the knowledge that it was subject to the outcome of ongoing statutory proceedings involving respondent no.5. The advertisement dated 17.6.2013 explicitly stated that the settlement of the license was provisional, pending the decision in writ/appeal. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner's license for the Excise Year 2014-15 could not be sustained in light of the order dated 15.7.2014, which restored respondent no.5's license.

3. Legality of the Renewal of the Petitioner's License in Light of Respondent No.5's Successful Appeal:
The court examined the renewal process of the petitioner's license and found that it was contingent upon the resolution of respondent no.5's appeal. Given that respondent no.5's license was reinstated, the court concluded that the renewal of the petitioner's license was invalid. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Maru Ram v. Union of India, which established that an appellate decision substitutes the original judgment and has retrospective effect. Therefore, the petitioner's license renewal was nullified by the restoration of respondent no.5's license.

4. Petitioner's Locus Standi to Challenge the Impugned Order:
The court determined that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the impugned order. The petitioner was not a party to the revision proceedings that led to the impugned order. The court referenced multiple precedents, including the cases of Sudhir Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Excise (Admn.) and Smt. Babita Rai v. State of U.P., which established that a fresh allottee has no standing to contest the restoration of a previously canceled license. The court emphasized that the petitioner's license was always subject to the outcome of respondent no.5's appeal, and thus, the petitioner could not claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the impugned order dated 15.7.2014 was valid and that the petitioner's license was provisional and subject to the decision in respondent no.5's appeal. The court concluded that the petitioner had no legal standing to challenge the restoration of respondent no.5's license, and thus, the writ petition was wholly misconceived. No order as to costs was made.