2017 (1) TMI 460 - HC - Indian Laws

Sale of liquor in retail - Natural justice - Direction to shift the shop - report R.C.No.1510/2015/TDP/G1, dated 21.09.2015 referred - Held that - based on a report obtained behind the back of the petitioner from the Municipal Corporation, respondent No.4 ought not to have arrived at unilateral conclusion that A4 shop of the petitioner is situated in Division No.20 and not in Division No.21. Such an action constitutes blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and also patent arbitrariness. The petitioner, who has claimed to have invested huge amounts, cannot be denied the valuable opportunity of establishing that A4 shop is located in the Division for which he was granted license - Respondent No.4 is directed to issue a notice to the petitioner to establish that his A4 shop is situated in Division No.21 and not in Division No.20 - matter on remand - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Location dispute of liquor shop between petitioner and respondent No.7.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice and arbitrariness in the decision-making process.
3. Legal validity of the order directing the petitioner to shift the shop.
4. Participation of respondent No.7 in the enquiry process.

Analysis:

1. The case involves a dispute regarding the location of a liquor shop owned by the petitioner in Division No.21, Magunta Layout, Kondayapalem, Nellore Town. Respondent No.7 raised objections claiming the shop was in Division No.20, leading to an order by respondent No.4 to shift the shop based on a report from the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition.

2. The High Court found that the order directing the petitioner to shift the shop was solely based on the report from the Municipal Corporation without providing the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence supporting the shop's location. The court criticized the unilateral decision-making process as a violation of natural justice and arbitrary, emphasizing the petitioner's right to establish the shop's actual location as per the license granted.

3. Respondent No.7's involvement in initiating the action against the petitioner was acknowledged, with the court noting that respondent No.7 should also have the opportunity to participate in the enquiry process to support his claim regarding the shop's location. The court highlighted the importance of a fair and inclusive enquiry to address the dispute effectively.

4. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed respondent No.4 to issue a notice to the petitioner to establish the shop's location. The petitioner was given the chance to provide explanations and evidence within a specified timeframe. Respondent No.4 was instructed to conduct an enquiry involving both parties and make a decision based on the evidence presented, ensuring completion within a month from the court's order.

5. The court allowed the writ appeal and petition, rendering related motions infructuous. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in resolving disputes related to licensing and location issues, ensuring all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case before a decision is made.