IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Pankaj Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Excise and Prohibition Department and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1717 of 2020
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Excise Act, 1915 - Renewal of licenses - Recovery of amount - Writ petition has been filed for quashing letter issued by Secretary whereby petitioner’s application for renewal of licenses relating to retail shop of Foreign/country made liquor for financial year has been rejected – Held, Serving of show cause notice specifying grounds on which action is proposed to be taken and action under contemplation is a mandatory requirement so as to enable noticee to answer case before passing order of blacklisting/banning which has not only long lasting civil consequence, but it also tarnishes blacklisted person’s reputation - Issuance of show cause notice cannot be excused on mere ground that there is a stipulation about blacklisting in bid document on violation of any of terms and conditions of tender - Blacklisting otherwise cannot be permanent - Since petitioner has been blacklisted for indefinite period, that too, without issuance of prior notice to him, same is held to be arbitrary and illegal - Accordingly, order passed by respondent no. 4 to extent of putting petitioner on blacklist is quashed and set aside - Writ petition is allowed in part.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed with following prayers :
(ii) For quashing the order as contained in memo no. 436 dated 27.04.2020 (Anneuxre-13 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag (the respondent no. 4) whereby the petitioner’s application for renewal of licenses for the financial year 2020-21 being license nos. 013-FLX-HZB-19-20 and 011-CLX-HZB-19-20 issued for foreign liquor shop and country made liquor shop respectively at Katkamdag/Kud has been rejected by forfeiting all the deposited amount towards security money, excise transport duty, license fee etc. as well as he has been blacklisted with observation that after adjusting the forfeited amount with respect to amount due for the financial year 2019-20, certificate case would be initiated against him for recovery of remaining due amount.
(iii) For renewal of the aforesaid licenses of the petitioner for the financial year 2020-21.
(iv) For refunding the security amount along with statutory interest of 18% and to impose exemplary cost against the respondents for the financial loss caused to the petitioner.
(v) For restraining the concern respondents from taking any coercive step against the petitioner as well as issuing license to others for the aforesaid liquor during pendency of the writ petition.
2. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, at the very outset, submits that so far as the prayer no. (i) and part of prayer no. (ii) are concerned, the same have now become infructuous as the retail liquor licenses in question were granted to the petitioner for the financial year 2019-20. He also submits that so far as the impugned letter no. 896 dated 11.06.2020 is concerned, the petitioner’s application for renewal of licenses for the financial year 2020-21 has been rejected on the ground of dues against him pertaining to financial year 2019-20. Further vide order dated 27.04.2020, the respondent no. 4 has already rejected the petitioner’s application for renewal of aforesaid licenses and has forfeited the deposited security amount, excise transport duty, license fee etc. as well as the petitioner has been put on blacklist with a further observation that the appropriate action would be taken by instituting a certificate case for realisation of balance due amount from him.
3. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 27.04.2020, the petitioner has also been put on the blacklist by the respondent no. 4 without issuing any prior notice intending to take such action against him. Moreover, since the blacklisting of the petitioner is for indefinite period, he will not be able to apply for grant of license in future under the provisions of the Excise Act, 1915 and the rules/policy framed thereunder by the state government. Hence, the present writ petition may be heard on the aspect of blacklisting of the petitioner.
4. Considering the said submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the Court proceeds to hear the case on the aspect of blacklisting of the petitioner.
5. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the impugned order dated 27.04.2020, yet nothing has been stated as to whether any specific notice was issued to the petitioner intending to blacklist him for not depositing the amount of Rs.9,04,957/- which was due to be paid for the financial year 2019-20.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India & Another reported in (2021)2 SCC 551, has held as under:-
UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India & Another reported in (2021)2 SCC 551
Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 1 SCC 804
Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager
Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105
The decision of blacklisting is subject to scrutiny based on principles of fairness, natural justice, non-discrimination, reasonableness, and proportionality. Serving a show cause notice specifying t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a valid, particularized, and unambiguous show-cause notice before blacklisting, and the need for fair hearing and proportionate ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.