Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Rajesh Balia,R.P. Vyas
State - Appellant
Versus
Versus Manoj Ali - Respondent
D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.33 of 2006
Decided On : 07/06/2006
Excise Licence Cancellation - Wholesale IMFL/beer and Country Liquor Licence - Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, Section 19/54, Section 58(c), Section 34(2) - The court discussed the cancellation of wholesale IMFL/beer and country liquor licences issued to the respondent Contractor for the finance year 2005-2006. The court highlighted the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, including Section 19/54, Section 58(c), and Section 34(2), which were central to the cancellation of the licences. The interpretation and application of these provisions influenced the court's decision to set aside the orders of cancellation and remand the case for fresh decision by the Excise Commissioner.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the cancellation of wholesale IMFL/beer and country liquor licences issued to the respondent Contractor for the finance year 2005-2006. The Excise Department cancelled the licences due to unauthorized storage of IMFL and beer and a case registered under Section 19/54 read with Section 58(c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Excise Department and sustained the preliminary objection raised by the Contractor. The court allowed the writ petitions filed by the Contractor and set aside the orders of remand and licence cancellations.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the Excise Department, the cancellation of licences based on unauthorized storage and a registered case under the Rajasthan Excise Act, and the remand of the case for fresh decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the writ petitions filed by the Excise Department were not maintainable based on a decision of the Supreme Court. The court also considered the grounds for licence cancellation and the remand order, ultimately setting aside the cancellations and remanding the case for fresh decision.
Final Decision: The court modified the order of the learned Single Judge, quashing the orders of the Excise Commissioner, but subject to a fresh decision to be passed by the Excise Commissioner in accordance with law as directed by the Board of Revenue. The writ petitions preferred by the Department and the Contractor were dismissed.
1. These four appeals are against the common Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.07.2005 passed in four S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3993, 3994, 4038 and 4044/2005 particulars of which we shall refer to a little later.
2. The controversy in these matters is about cancellation of wholesale licence of IMFL/beer and country liquor licence issued in favour of the respondent Manoj Ali and party (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) for finance year 2005-2006.
Particulars about Petitions and Special Appeal Relating to Cancellation of Wholesale IMFL/beer Licence
3. Vide order passed by the Commissioner of Excise Rajasthan dated 30.05.2005 by finding that since from the approved godown under the wholesale licence to vend IMFL and beer, a large quantity of IMFL was recovered in respect of which a case under Section 19/54 read with Section 58(c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 has been registered as FIR No.8/2005 and that storage of IMFL and beer in the godown in question was unauthorized and in breach of conditions of licence. The licence issued on 27.04.2005 and provisional sanction issued on 01.04.2005 for wholesale trade in IMFL and beer was cancelled and as a consequence the licence fee was forfeited. The Distt. Excise Officer, Bikaner was directed to take in his possession the stock lying in the approved godown for wholesale trade and dispose off it in accordance with law.
4. The said order dated 30.05.2005 cancelling IMFL licence and sanction issued in favour of the Contractor and forfeiting the amount of licence fee was set aside by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 06.07.2005 and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Excise, Rajasthan for deciding the case a fresh.
5. Both the Excise Department as well as Contractor were not happy with the order of remand. While the department wanted that the Board ought to have sustained the order of the Commissioner dated 30.05.2005, the Contractor demanded that the order of the Commissioner has rightly been set aside, but there was no case for remanding it back to the Commissioner.
6. This led to filing of two cross writ petitions by the Excise Department as well as by the Contractor.
7. The Contractor has preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4038/2004 challenging the order of Board of Revenue and the order of Excise Commissioner relating to cancellation of wholesale licence of IMFL and beer. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.352/2006 arises out of Judgment referable to writ petition No.4038/2005.
8. Correspondingly the Commissioner, Excise and the Distt. Excise Officer preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3993/2005 challenging the order of Board of Revenue dated 06.07.2005 related to cancellation of contractor’s licence for wholesale trade in IMFL and beer. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.355/2005 arises out of aforesaid writ petition No.3993/2005.
Particulars About Petitions And Special Appeals Relating To Cancellation Of Country Liquor Licence
9. As a result of cancellation of licence for wholesale vend of IMFL and beer granted to the respondent - Contractor and also for the reason of registration of case under Section 19/54 read with Section 58(c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the licence for retail vend of country liquor issued in favour of the respondent - Contractor was also cancelled by the Commissioner vide his order dated 28.06.2005 as per Section 34(2) of the Act.
10. In this order reference was made to condition No.9.2 of the country liquor which provides that if the licensee is found guilty of evading excise duty payable to the State directly or indirectly, his licence can be cancelled or suspended. It also referred to condition No. 9.3 which corresponded to Clause 17 of wholesale licence for IMFL/beer, that apart from empowering Commissioner to cancel or suspend licence in terms of Section 34(1)(d) on being convicted of any offence stated therein, the Commissioner could also cancel or suspend the licence on mere registration of a case
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
