SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(All) 2825

RAJES KUMAR, AMITAVA LALA
RAJESH GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
S.P. Gupta, Keshari Nath Tripathi, Ravi Kiran Jain, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Prasad, Ashok Mehta, Manish Goyal, Shiv Sagar Singh, H.B. Singh, V.K. Singh, Jai Prakash Prasad, S.K. Singh, K.K.S. Chauhan, Neeraj Tripathi, S.K. Dwivedi, A.K. Gupta, S.K. Tiwari, Murtuza Ali, Neeraj Sharma, Shashi Dhar Pandey, Rajendra Jaiswal, Varindra Kumar Rai, S.P.S. Rathore, R.K. Vaish, Satish Chaturvedi, Shreesh Tripathi, Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi, N.C. Rajvanshi, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Sushil Kumar, D.B. Singh, Niraj Tiwari, A.P. Tewari, S. Kumar, Tripathi B.G. Bhai, Ramendra Asthana, Rohit Tiwari, Devendra Kumar, R.S. Maurya, J.P.S. Chauhan, Ashok Kumar Singh, D.K. Singh, M.P. Singh, Madan Mohan Srivastava, Sudarshan Singh, S.C. Varma, Ashok Kumar Singh, Dinesh Misra, U.B. Singh, S.K. Mishra, S.K. Chaubey, D.V. Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh, Hemendra Pratap Singh, Anshu Singh, Sunil Vashisth, Vivek Saran, Shailesh Upadhyay, Abhijit Kumar, V.B. Upadhyay, Shubham Agrawal, Rajesh Pathik, Saurabh Bisarya, Nigamendra Shukla, Jagdev Singh, S.S. Shukla, Ramesh Kumar Shukla, J.P. Pandey, R.R. Khan, Vikas Srivastava, Hemendra Kumar, Sandeep Srivastava, Altaf Mansoor, Arjeet Banerjee, Debal Banerjee, Sanjay Agrawal, Bheem Singh, Ratnendu Kumar Singh, P.S. Chauhan, Sharad Malviya, M.I. Farooqui, Devendra Gupta, R.K. Pandey, P.S. Pundir, Krishna Mohan Singh and Ms. Archana Singh for the Petitioner/s; Ravi Kant, Sr. Adv., Special Counsel, Jaideep Narain Mathur, Additional Advocate General and S.P. Kesarwani, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents; U.N. Sharma, Sr. Ad. and Ved Byas Mishra for U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Limited; Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. and Shashi Prakash Rai for M/s. Amethyst Town Planners Private Limited (Company).

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This Revenue Bench of the High Court has been flooded with several writ petitions made by the purported holders of licence to run the respective retail liquor shops challenging the new excise policy of the State made in the year 2009, followed by the respective rules and the notifications, for the purpose of allotment of licence of retail liquor shops for the excise year 2009-10. Some of the writ petitions are made by the licence holders of the retail shops falling within the special zone constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Demarcation and Regulation of Special Zones for Exclusive Privilege of Excise Shops Rules, 2009 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Demarcation Rules, 2009’), their cases are segregated and categorised as ‘special zone category’. The other petitioners, whose existing retail shops are not within such zone but in the zone governed by the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Rules, 2009’), are segregated and categorised as ‘general zone category’. Some of the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settle




































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top