Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1655
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA and SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ.
INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD - PETITIONER
Versus
DELHI ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
W.P.(C) 2249/1992
Decided on: 17th December, 2013
Mr. Siddharth Garg with Mr.Sugam Seth and Ms.Nidhi Mehrotra, Advocates.
None.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its earlier decision in the absence of statutory provisions.
Headnote:
Excise License - Quashing of Order - Indian Companies Act, 1956 - L-3 and L-5 license - Orbit Bar - Excise Commissioner's order - Collector of Excise's memorandum - Order dated 01.04.1985 - Show cause notice - License fee - Quasi-judicial authority - Review in absence of statutory provisions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, India Tourism Development Corporation, sought quashing of an order and memorandum raising a demand for license fee. The petitioner had obtained L-3 and L-5 licenses for the sale of liquor in the Bar located on the ground floor of the Hotel Janpath. The Collector of Excise had issued an order on 01.04.1985, deleting two restaurants from the L-5 license and not imposing any penalty or additional license fee. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued in 1989, leading to an order in 1992 directing the petitioner to pay license fee along with interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order and memorandum were not sustainable as the 1985 order had become final, and the quasi-judicial authority had no power to issue a fresh show cause notice after a significant gap. The court set aside the order and directed a refund of any amount paid pursuant to the memorandum.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the order and memorandum, the authority of the quasi-judicial body to issue a fresh show cause notice, and the absence of statutory provisions for review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of statutory provisions, a review application is not maintainable for judicial/quasi-judicial orders. It emphasized that the quasi-judicial authority could not review its earlier decision unless the power of review is conferred by the statute.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the order and memorandum, and directed a refund of any amount paid pursuant to the memorandum.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner by the present petition has sought quashing of the order dated 08.05.1992 passed by the Commissioner of Excise and the memorandum dated 09.06.1992 issued by the Collector of Excise raising a demand on the petitioner for a sum of Rs.9,68,750/-pursuant to the order dated 08.05.1992.
2. The petitioner, India Tourism Development Corporation, a Government of India Undertaking incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, had applied for and obtained L–3 and L–5 licence for sale of liquor in the Bar located on the ground floor of the Hotel Janpath. The licence was granted for running and serving liquor in “ORBIT BAR”. The excise licence was for the period 1.4.1983 to 31.3.1984. The exact words used in the licence read:
S.No. Name of the Bar Name of attached Restaurants/ Dining Hall.
1. ‘OPEN HOUSE’ Open House Restaurant
2. ‘ORBIT BAR’ Attached Dining Hall of Orbit, Mandarian and Gulnar Restt.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the said Orbit Bar was located on the ground floor in the centre of Hotel Janpath and on three sides around the Bar, there was space for restaurants and on the fourth side there was a passage. The entire area where the bar and the restaurants were situated were interconnected and there was no door fixed to separate them from each other. The petitioner at the time of application for grant of liquor licence had submitted a plan wherein the areas including the bar area were distinctly shown. On the basis of the said application, the licence in the category of L–5 was granted and the licence specifically mentioned “Orbit Bar” attached to dining hall of “Orbit, Mandarin and Gulnar Restaurants”.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and their staff have always run the liquor bar in question in accordance with the licence. The bar was inspected on several occasions by the officers of the respondents and entries with respect to the inspection were duly recorded in the register maintained by the hotel. At no stage, any contravention, irregularity or violation was found or recorded. Learned counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to the Inspection reports covering the period between 22.03.1980 to 31.12.1984 annexed to the petition as Annexure ‘C’ from pages 24 to 65. This is the accepted and admitted position. The respondents have not contested the said assertion.
5. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice to show cause as to why two of the three restaurants attached with Orbit Bar be not deleted from their licence or as to why licence fee of Rs.1 lac in respect of the two additional restaurants be not charged from them.
6. By order dated 01.04.1985, the Collector of Excise adjudicated on the show cause notice and directed:-
“The written contentions put before me are not tenable in view of the fact that the three restaurants viz., ‘Hall of Orbit’, ‘Mandarin' and ‘Gulnar’ restaurants are being run independently as separate units and that billing of each restaurants is also done separately. However, since the management has now decided to start a new restaurant in place of the earlier two restaurant, namely, ‘Hall of Orbit' and ‘Gulnar’ after renovations are carried out and intends to keep only one restaurant by name ‘Mandarian' attached with their “Orbit Bar”, in the meantime, it is ordered that the two restaurants, namely, ‘Hall of Orbit' and’ ‘Gulnar’ be deleted from the L–5 licence forthwith. Excise Inspector (Hotel) be required to ensure that no liquor is served in the restaurants which are now ordered to be deleted in future and that as and when the proposed restaurants are started after the renovation are carried out as stated by the representative of the licencee, this fact may be brought on record.”
7. Perusal of the order shows that the Collector noticed that three restaurants were attached to the ‘Orbit Bar’ at the time of grant of the licence, as there was separate billing and they were being run as independent units. The order recor
