Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
MADAN LAL – Petitioner
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR & OTHERS – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7316 of 2016
Decided On : 24-08-2016
Liquor Shop - License Agreement Dispute - Delhi Excise Act, 2009, Section 7, Rule 51(1), Section 25 - The court discussed the license agreement, the authority of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 7, and the provisions of Section 25 regarding closure of shops for preservation of public peace. The court highlighted the lack of reasons recorded for closure beyond fifteen days and the petitioner's commercial interest in the liquor vend.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an order directing the immediate closure of a liquor shop, citing a license agreement with the respondent and disputing the authority of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) to pass such an order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had a pecuniary interest in the liquor shop and was entitled to maintain the petition. It also noted the lack of recorded law and order issues justifying the closure of the shop.
Issues: The issues included the authority of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) to issue the closure order, the petitioner's standing to file the petition, and the presence of law and order problems at the liquor shop.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the closure order lacked justification under Section 25 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, and quashed the order. It also emphasized the petitioner's commercial interest in the liquor vend.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned letter/order directing closure of the liquor shop was quashed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
W.P. (C) 7316/2016 & CM No. 30099/2016 (stay)
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 08.08.2016 whereby the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) has directed that sale of the vend, i.e. liquor shop, be stopped immediately.
2. The petitioner is the owner of shop No.2, Khasra No.5/19/1, Main 100 ft. Road, Nathu Pura, Burari, Delhi-84.
3. It is contended that the petitioner has a licence agreement with Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Limited (DTTDC), respondent No.3, where in the respondent No.3 was to obtain approval/sanction of the competent authority for opening of and running the retail liquor shop in the aforesaid property.
4. It is contended that as per the licence agreement, the respondent No.3 has to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month or 12.5% of the gross profit on the sale of liquor, which ever is higher.
5. It is contended that the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 has been passed without any reason by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), who even otherwise is not empowered under the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to pass such an order. It is further contended that the impugned letter incorrectly records that there is likelihood of law and order problem at the vend.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - DTTDC submits that the shop has been incorrectly closed by respondent No.2 by the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as the licence for opening the vend has been given to the respondent No.3 and not to the petitioner. He submits that there is likelihood of law and order problem at the vend and that is why the order for closing the vend has been passed. He further submits that the order had been passed with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), who is empowered under Section 7 of the Act to pass such an order. He has also produced the relevant original file of the department. Reference is made particularly to Note sheet dated 25.07.2016 and 04.08.2016 as also to the letter dated 27.07.2016, which is written to one Shri Kapil Kumar, who is one of the complainants against the opening of the vend as also to letter dated 27.07.2016 written to SHO, Police Station Burari.
8. With regard to the objections raised by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 as to the maintainability of the petition, some of the clauses of the licence agreement may be referred to as under:-
“Whereas the first party is the exclusive legal owner in possession of property bearing Shop No.2, Khasara No.5/19/1, Main 100 Ft. Road Nathu Pura, Burari, Delhi - 110084.
And Whereas the first party approached the 2nd party to obtain approval / sanction of the competent authority for opening of and running a retail liquor shop in the aforesaid property / a part of the said property comprising of a shop measuring /having an area of 400 Sqft. (more appropriately shown in the site plan attached herewith and hereinafter referred to as the “SAID PREMISES”).
AND WHEREAS the second party is one of the authorized undertaking/bodies who have been given permission by the Competent Authority to run retail liquor shops in the National Capital of Delhi.
AND WHEREAS the First Party has approached the second party for opening of and running a retail liquor shop in the said premises and the second party has at request of the first party agreed to open and run a retail liquor shop in the said premises on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement and which have been mutually accepted by the parties.
***** ***** ***** *****
3. That in consideration of the first party giving and handling over possession of the said premises to the second party for the aforesaid purpose, the second party shall pay to the first party every month a sum equivalent to Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) per month of 12.5% of the Gross Profit on the sale of liquor from the sa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
