9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 843 - HC - Indian LawsCountry liquor shop - Advertisement Challenged Applications were invited for newly created country liquor shop Held that - From the statement of facts in the counter affidavit we find that the allegation, that new shop had been allotted to take away the business from the petitioner and that it was within 500 meters of the periphery of the petitioner s shop, was not correct - The State Government can carve out/allocate any number of shops provided they do not violate the conditions laid down in U.P. Excise (Number of Allocation and Situation of Excise Shops) Rules 1968, as amended in the year 2008 - there was no infraction of any Rule or policy of the State Government in this case Decided against Petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to advertisement inviting applications for a new liquor shop in a specific village; Allegation of allotting a new shop within 500 meters of petitioner's existing shop; Failure to implead the allottee of the shop in the petition. Analysis: The petitioner, who was previously allotted a liquor shop, challenged an advertisement inviting applications for a new shop in a different location. The petitioner claimed that there was no vacant shop available for allocation to others in the specified area. However, the counter affidavit revealed that new shops were indeed allotted in the district without affecting the petitioner's quota. The District Magistrate proposed the transfer of quota for vacant shops and the creation of new liquor shops, including one in Hadhai, which was approved by the Excise Commissioner. The newly created shop had a quota of 6000 bulk litres, slightly different from the petitioner's shop, which was 3.5 km away. The counter affidavit clarified that there was no violation of the Excise Commissioner's order regarding the distance and quota between liquor shops. It was emphasized that the new shop did not aim to impact the petitioner's business negatively. The court noted that the State Government had the authority to allocate liquor shops as long as it complied with the relevant rules and policies. In this case, there was no breach of the U.P. Excise Rules, and the allocation of the new shop was deemed lawful. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the respondent based on the absence of any violation of rules or policies in the allocation of the new liquor shop.
|
