Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 504
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Adarsh Kumar Goel and Alok Singh JJ.
Ajay Uberoi
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 3889 of 1987,
Decided On : JANUARY 20, 2010
IMPORTANT POINT
Liquor Vend--Licence Fee--Non-payment of--Is valid ground to forfeit security and re-auction liquor vend and to recover difference of license fee.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.36(b)--Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, R.37(36)--Cancellation of Liquor Vend Licence--Non-payment of license fee--Notice--Petitioner was called to payment of outstanding license fee and in failure thereof to face consequence of cancellation--Notice was duly served but no reply filed by petitioner--Action of respondent cancelling of liquor vend licence not illegal. (P.7)
(B) Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.36(b)--Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, R.37(36)--Non-payment of license fee--Forfeitures of security--Petitioner did not pay license fee despite demand being raised--Show cause notice duly served on petitioner--Security amount deposited by petitioner rightly forfeited and liqour vend to be re-auctioned.
(C) Punjab Excise Act, 1914, S.36(b)--Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, R.37(36)--Petitioner accepted license in name shown therein and deposited license fee and sold liquor w.e.f. April, 1984 to August, 1984--He cannot avoid recovery/forfeiture for non-payment of license fee on ground that his request to correct record deleting names of partners by substituting name of petitioner as sole proprietor was turned down. (P.9)
Alok Singh, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred, seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 13.8.1984 (Annexure P-6), 29.11.1984 (Annexure P-10) 27.12.1984 (Annexures P-14 to 25), 25.3.1985 (Annexure P-12) and 29.10.1986 (Annexure P-13), cancelling the liquor vend licence of the petitioner and directing the recovery of remaining license fee and forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner licencee, as security.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner participated in auction for 16 liquor vends in district Sonepat. On 10.3.1984, the petitioner deposited requisite amount towards security and license fee with the Department as per the auction conditions. However, as per the petitioner, he never intended to take vends in the partnership, and that, he was the sole owner/proprietor of the company i. e. M/s. Vendra and Co. , although, names of certain persons were wrongly shown to be partners with the petitioner. On the request of the petitioner vide letter dated 28.3.1984, respondent No.5 referred the case to respondent No.4 to correct the record deleting the names of the alleged partners and mentioning therein the petitioner to be the sole proprietor of the firm. Petitioners further case is that after the letter dated 28.3.1984, on an assurance given by respondent No.3, he deposited the entire requisite amount with Randhir Liquor Vend as per L-2 of district sonepat. However, thereafter, respondent No.4 vide letter dated 13.8.1984 refused to make amendment in the record deleting the names of the partners and mentioning the name of the petitioner as sole proprietor. Petitioners further case is that although, he was running the liquor vend, he could not pay license fee from the month of August, 1984. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to him fixing 29.11.1984 as the date of hearing. However, despite petitioners request to grant him time to reply to the show cause notice, the impugned order dated 29.11.1984 was passed forfeiting the entire amount of security under Rule 37 (36) of the Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Rules ). Petitioners further case is that since on the date of auction, the petitioner was less than 25 years of age, no auction/liquor vend license could be granted in favour of the petitioner and since names of the alleged partners were not deleted from the record, hence no recovery can be made from the petitioner nor his security amount could be forfeited.
3. The respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner and have submitted that admittedly the petitioner having obtained L-2 license, was running shops and was paying license fee regularly till July, 1984 and did not pay license fee for all 16 vends from August, 1984, hence first of all, liquor vends were sealed as per law and thereafter, having issued show cause notice, although, no show cause notice was required, by the impugned order dated 29.11.1984, his security amount was forfeited. Further case of the respondents is that re-auction was made on 7.12.1984, resulting in a loss of the license fee, difference of which is recoverable from the petitioner and which can be recovered as a land revenue, hence impugned recoveries are being made as per law against the petitioner.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. For the purpose of deciding the present case, three questions are emerging for the consideration of this Court: -
(i) As to whether any notice is required to cancel the liquor vend for non-payment of license fee ?
(ii) As to whether forfeiture of security amount can be ordered invoking the power under Rule 37 (36) of the 1970 Rules ?
(iii) As to whether not correcting the record deleting the names of the partners by substituting the name of the petitioner as the sole proprietor, would make the respondents disentitle to make recovery of the loss from the petitioner ?
6. So far as, the first qu
