9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers the excise authorities were restrained from settling the licence regularly and were permitted to run the shop only on daily wages basis either with the old licensee or with the newly selected candidates - notice was issued to the petitioner to deposit the licence fee, earnest money and the security money by the Excise Officer, Meerut and it was specifically stated in the notice that in case the petitioner does not deposit the said amount, his selection shall be cancelled - The petitioner admittedly did not deposit the licence fee, earnest money and the security money and as a matter of fact vide his application dated 15.07.2002 requested that the term of his daily basis licence be not extended beyond 22nd July, 2002 - It is, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after draw of lots in accordance with Rule 10(b) the petitioner was selected for grant of licence for retail sale of country liquor in respect of the said locality. However, in between large number of writ petitions were filed before this Court, leading writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5050 of 2002 wherein initially an interim order was passed restraining the settlement of licences under the Rules of 2002. However, the interim order was modified on 20.04.2002 permitting the settlement of the shop on daily wage basis only either with the previous licensee or with the newly selected candidate. This arrangement under the order of the High Court remained in operation till 07.07.2002 when the writ petitions were finally decided and dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remained pending for nearly four years. However, a citation for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,81,000/- was served upon the petitioner on 27.11.2006. He, filed Excise Appeal No. 71 of 2006 under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Excise Act challenging the said demand before the Excise Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2007. He, therefore, filed revision under Section 11(2), being Revision No. 20(R) of 2007, before the State Government. The revision has also been dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2007. Hence this petition. In order to keep the record straight it may be noticed that this writ petition was allowed by means of judgement and order dated 17.04.2008 in light of the judgement of this Court in the case of Rajendra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iswal and another vs. State of U.P. Thru' Princ. Secry., (Excise) and others, reported in 2011 (4) ADJ 558 has held that the judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh Chauhan does not lay down correct law. The judgment in the case of Anil Kumar and others was delivered following the law as laid down in the case of Rajendra Singh Chauhan. He further points out that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brij Kishore Jaiswal has held that once lottery is drawn, an applicant is selected and the slip of selection is countersigned by the excise authority, the contract between the parties is concluded and in that circumstances the person concerned become liable for payment of the entire licence fee which is in two parts (a) basic licence fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of lottery he was selected for grant of such licence by the excise authority at Meerut. However, because of the interim order dated 18.04.2002 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 505 of 2002 and connected matters the excise authorities were restrained from settling the licence regularly and were permitted to run the shop only on daily wages basis either with the old licensee or with the newly selected candidates. This interim arrangement continued till 07.07.2002 when the writ petition was finally decided. After the judgment was delivered, a notice was issued to the petitioner to deposit the licence fee, earnest money and the security money by the Excise Officer, Meerut and it was specifically stated in the notice that in case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty amount within 20 days of information of his selection. If he fails to deposit the amount of basic licence fee or security amount within prescribed period, his selection shall stand cancelled and his earnest money and the basic licence fee and security amount if deposited by him shall be forfeited in favour of the State Government and the said shop shall be resettled forthwith." The State Government while passing the order impugned has completely loss sight of the aforesaid statutory rules while holding that non-deposit of the security money, earnest money and the licence fee by the selected candidate would amount to surrender of the licence covered by Section 36 of the U.P. Excise Act. In the opinion of the Court since the selection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
