Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sangeet Lodha and Dinesh Mehta, JJ.
Rukandeen - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Thr. Principal Secretary (revenue) Govt. Of Raj., Jaipur And Others - Respondent
Spl. Appl. Writ No. 27 of 2019
Decided On : 10-04-2019
Mr. Rohit Mutha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Dr. Sachin Acharya with Mr. Shridhar Mehta, Advocates, for the Respondents
A party's negligence in pursuing an appeal and failure to take appropriate steps to seek relief can bar them from obtaining relief from the court, even if they have a valid claim.
Headnote:
EXCISE - RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT, 1950 - SECTION 14 - APPROVAL OF LOCATION OF SHOP - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - APPROVAL OF LOCATION OF SHOP - FACTUAL POSITION - APPELLANT'S NEGLIGENCE IN PURSUING APPEAL - DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL APPEAL AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS - LIBERTY TO AVAIL APPROPRIATE REMEDY.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a liquor license holder, sought approval for the location of a country liquor shop in Ward No. 36 of Bikaner City. The application was initially returned due to missing documents, and a subsequent application was submitted to the Additional Commissioner Excise. A dispute arose regarding the demarcation of Ward Nos. 25 and 36, leading to a direction for a detailed report from the District Collector. The shop in question was later demolished by the UIT for alleged encroachment. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the approval of another location in Ward No. 36 and seeking approval for his own location. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the demolition of the shop.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was negligent in pursuing the appeal filed before it and that he had failed to make an appropriate application for approval of a fresh location despite the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous. The court also noted that the period of the contract awarded had expired, rendering the question of issuing directions for approval of a new location moot.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to approval of a new location for the shop despite the demolition of the existing shop. 2. Whether the appellant's negligence in pursuing the appeal and failure to make an appropriate application for approval of a fresh location barred him from seeking relief from the court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant's right to submit a fresh location for approval was not extinguished by the demolition of the shop, as the license granted to him was operative during the financial year 2018-19. 2. However, the court found that the appellant's negligence in pursuing the appeal and failure to make an appropriate application for approval of a fresh location barred him from seeking relief from the court.
Final Decision: The special appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. The appellant was granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies under the law, including for any loss caused to him due to the non-approval of the shop's location by the respondents.
JUDGMENT
Sangeet Lodha, J. - This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 27.9.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking directions to the respondents to approve location of shop of country liquor in Ward No. 36 of Municipal Corporation, Bikaner in favour of the petitioner and cancellation of approved location of the private respondent in the said ward has been disposed of as having become infructuous.
2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:
"Mr. Ladrecha by inadvertance, could not place Collectors report on record on 29.8.2018, he has furnished the requisite report today which is taken on record. The disputed shop in relation whereto the instant writ petition was filed, has been demolished by the UIT. Thus, apparently the controversy which was raised by the petitioner in this writ petition does not survive any longer. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. In case the petitioner has any pending grievance with the department, he would be at liberty to agitate the same as per law.
The stay petition is also disposed of.
No order as to cost."
3. The facts relevant are that the appellant was allocated the liquor license for the year 2018-19 for the Country Liquor Group Ward Nos. 36, 37 & 38 of the municipal area of Bikaner City. There were two shops in the Group and one shop of the appellant was running from 1.4.18 on the previously approved location in Ward No. 36 at Rani Baazar. The appellant submitted location for second shop before the District Excise Officer, Bikaner on 24.3.18. The application being not accompanied by requisite documents, was returned by the Department to the appellant. The appellant instead of submitting the application for said location alongwith requisite documents before the District Excise Officer submitted another location before the Additional Commissioner Excise, Bikaner, on 24.4.18. On 7.5.18, the appellant preferred writ petition before this Court seeking directions as aforesaid, raising the grievance that while the appellants application for approval of the location is pending, the respondents have processed the application of respondent No. 5 in the location which forms part of Ward No. 36, whereas he had not applied for the same. After filing of the writ petition, the application of the appellant for approval of the location was referred to the Excise Inspector, Bikaner City to do the needful. On the recommendation of the Excise Inspector, the location was approved, however, vide notice dated 24.5.18, the appellant was informed that the location has been approved inadvertently and as a matter of fact at different time different locations were submitted by him and thus, the Department has been misguided. The appellant was directed to submit the explanation in this regard. As a matter of fact, the shop in respect whereof approval was sought by the appellant was in Ward No. 25 and not in Ward No. 36, 37 & 38. While the dispute in this regard pursuant to the notice issued as aforesaid was pending, the Department of Excise sought report from Municipal Corporation, Bikaner. The Municipal Corporation, Bikaner reported that the shop of the appellant is located in Ward No. 36, which was a report contrary to the earlier report.
4. On 7.8.18, the learned Single Judge for resolution of the dispute in just and fair manner passed the order as follow:
"The parties to the litigation at hand are at loggerheads regarding the demarcation/extent of the Wards Nos. 25 and 36 of the Bikaner city. Even the officials of the Excise Department seem to be confused in this regard. Thus, in order to resolve the controversy fully in a just and fair manner, the District Collector, Bikaner is directed to forward a detailed report to this court in sealed cover setting out distinct demarcation and description of the areas covered by the Wards No. 25 and 36 with pinpointed landmarks so that the controve
