Indefinite suspension of excise licenses for compoundable offenses is disproportionate if based on contradictory records and unadmitted core allegations; must direct compounding and renewal consideration.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court against order dated 15.6.2024 (Annexure P-10), whereby, exercising powers under Sections 29(b), 29(c) and 30(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), the Financial Commissioner (Excise), Himachal Pradesh, has suspended licences granted to the petitioner in Forms BHW-2, L-11, L-1A, L-1C, L-13C, L-15 & L-16, w.e.f. 16.3.2024, with direction to the Collector (Excise), North Zone, Palampur, to ensure compliance of the provisions of Sections 30(2), 31 and 72 of the Act, which provide recovery of licence fee, without any compensation or refund claimable for suspension of licence.

2. During pendency of petition, vide order dated 25.11.2024, direction was issued to respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the representation of the petitioner, dated 5.7.2024 (Annexure P- 11), in terms of Section 66(2) of the Act, which was pending consideration at the time of filing the petition.

3. In sequel thereto, the Financial Commissioner (Excise), passed consideration order on 9.12.2024 (Annexure P-13), whereby representation of the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, to lay challenge also to the order dated 9.12.2024, passed during pendency of the petition, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was filed, which was allowed.

4. Plea of the petitioner is that inspection conducted on 16.3.2024 of the premises of the petitioner, as alleged, was neither conducted nor any truck-load of liquor was ever detected. To substantiate this plea, he has referred inconsistencies and contradictions in the Inspection Report with the contents of FIR No.33 of 2024, dated 26.3.2024, got registered by Vinod Singh Dogra, Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Police Station Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

5. It has been contended that, for issuance of necessary licences to the petitioner, the petitioner has guaranteed right to run the business in accordance with law, and has a fundamental right to carry on the business in terms of the licences, and that is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the said right of the petitioner has been infringed by omissions and commissions of respondents, because even if case of the respondents, for argument sake, is considered to be true, the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the offences alleged to have been committed, as all the offences were and are compoundable under Chapter VIII of the Act. It has been further submitted that suspension and revocation of licence are independent from each other and suspension cannot be for an indefinite period amounting to revocation or cancellation of licence, and, therefore, as till date licences have not been cancelled, the suspension of licences deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. To substantiate the plea on behalf of petitioner, it has been argued that action has purported to have been taken under the provisions of Sections 29(b), 29(c), 31(1), 43(b), 43(d) and 44(b) of the Act, which provide provision for cancellation or suspension of licence for non