TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y short lifted, is imposed and if there are two such monthly defaults, the licence itself was liable to be cancelled and the second proviso to Rule 14 provided that the licencing authority shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before levying the penalty or cancelling the licence. From the facts in the present case, it is not seen anywhere that the petitioner had raised any objection or has given any explanation suitable or otherwise for such short lifting of the liquor from the respondent, Department or its authorized licencee/manufacturer. Even if the principles of natural justice were to be complied with as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same cannot yield anything in the facts of the present case - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Hence, the petitioner prays that the said demand notices deserve to be quashed by this court. 4. He further submitted that Rule 14(2) of the above said Rules, as existed prior to its deletion with effect from 1.8.2014, provided for an opportunity be given to the licencee for explaining reasons for the alleged short lifting of liquor as per the Licence terms and said Rules. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Reddy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents has submitted before the court that the petitioner never raised any objection to the said demand notices to the tune of ₹ 7,73,100/- for the short lifting of the liquor during the year 2015-16 as he had CL-9 Licence for the Bar and Restaurant run by her and on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring to the licencee, if he fails to lift the minimum quantity of liquor so fixed per month, which quantity was specified in the said rule itself, before the penalty at the rate of ₹ 100/- for every bulk litre on the quantity short lifted, is imposed and if there are two such monthly defaults, the licence itself was liable to be cancelled and the second proviso to Rule 14 provided that the licencing authority shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before levying the penalty or cancelling the licence. 9. As stated above, the said Rule 14(2) itself stands deleted from the statute book with effect from 1.8.2014 and the impugned demand notices and the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner are all after the said delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the authorized licencees only to avoid the smuggling of illegal liquor into the market through illegal outlets or source. To check such a menace, if a liability is fixed under the Rule for payment of price for the short lifted quantity of liquor, the same cannot be said to be a penalty requiring any guilty animus on the part of the licencee so as to require prior opportunity of hearing. The fact of short lifting is to be computed as per the minimum quantity prescribed under Rule 14 itself and the rate of penalty of ₹ 100/- per bulk litre is also provided therein. Therefore, nothing much can be achieved to the contrary by giving an opportunity of hearing as demanded in the present case for explaining the reasons for such short lift ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consumers. In case the licensee fail to lift the minimum quantity of liquor so fixed per month, he shall be liable to pay a penalty at the rate of ₹ 100.00 for every bulk litre on the quantity short lifted: Provided that in case the licensee fails to lift the minimum quantity so fixed consecutively for two months, the license may liable to be cancelled: Provided further that the licensing Authority shall give the licensee, a reasonable opportunity of being heard before levying the penalty or cancelling the license. The minimum quantity of liquor (excluding fenny, wine and beer) to be lifted in a month by a CL-2 (Retail shop)/CL-9 (Bar) licensee is as follows: 12. From the facts in the present case, it is not seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|