9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder or direction declaring that the order dated 15.7.2014 does not impinge upon the license granted to the petitioner for the Excise Year 2014-15; iii] to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering and/or causing any hindrance in the business of the petitioner being carried thereon pursuant to the licence for the retail sale of country liquor granted to it for the Excise Year 2014-15 ; iv] Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner; v] award the cost of the writ petitioner to the petitioner. 3-Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that in the year 2009-10 a retail country liquor license of the shop ''Sarai Meer Azamgarh' was settled in favour of the respondent no.5 as per provisions of ''Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of License for Retail Sale of Country Liquor ) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'). Her license was renewed from year to year in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules and the relevant Government Policy for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed under the advertisement dated 17.6.2013 is subject to the decision in a writ or appeal, the petitioner applied for license of the country liquor shop in question. The license was settled in favour of the petitioner on 21.6.2013 and the license dated 23.7.2013 was issued to him. 10- For the Excise year 2013-14, the State Government took a decision to settle the license by way of renewal and as such the applications were invited. The petitioner applied. The license was renewed vide endorsement dated 31.1.2014. Subsequently, revision of the respondent no.5 was allowed by the State Government vide order dated 15.7.2014 and as such the respondent no.5 sought the renewal of her license contending that the license of the petitioner itself was subject to the decision in appeal/writ petition, as it was made clear in the advertisement dated 17.6.2013 pursuant to which the petitioner applied and obtained the license. 11-Aggrieved with the order dated 15.7.2014 and the intended action of the State-respondent the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 12-Shri Yashwant Varma submits that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Gorakh Nath v. State of U.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of her license has been set aside by the revising authority under section 11(2) of the Act by order dated 15/17.7.2014 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 17-As per memo of revision filed as Annexure-10, the petitioner was not a party to the said revision in which the impugned order has been passed. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the said revision or the appeal filed by respondent no.5. 18-On the contrary, it is evident from the advertisement dated 17.6.2013, that the settlement of the country liquor shop in question is being made on cancellation of license of the respondent no.5 subject to the decision in writ/appeal. 19-Under the circumstances, the necessary consequences that follows is that on setting aside of the order of cancellation dated 11.6.2013 and 178.2013, the license of respondent no.5 automatically revived and in terms of advertisement dated 176.2013, the license of the petitioner came to an end. 20-The petitioner obtained the license knowing it well that the license is subject to the decision in statutory proceedings being carried by the respondent no.5. The order passed by the State Government in the revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has arisen. Once the said supposition is not true- in the sense that the said cancellation was found to be illegal-- the grant of licence to the appellant must be deemed to be provisional and a temporary arrangement, as rightly held by the High Court, notwithstanding the fact that it may have been described as a permanent license. Once the fifth respondent's licence is restored, the licence granted to the appellant comes to an end by operation of law. It is not really a case of 'cancellation' within the meaning of Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act. No notice was also necessary to be given to the appellant. (Emphasis supplied by me ) 23-Considering similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhir Singh and others v. Additional Commissioner, Excise (Admn.) and others v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Tax No.927 of 2011, decided on 19.7.2011 held as under : The District Magistrate has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13103 of 1996, Gorakh Nath Vs. State decided on 11.10.1996 in which it was held that once the cancelled license restored, license granted to fresh allottee comes to an end by operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
