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

2006 Supreme(All) 733

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajes Kumar, J.
Anand Swaroop Gangwar son of Sri Itwari Lal Gangwar
Versus
State of U.P. through Secretary Excise Department
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1234 of 2005
Decided On : 07 March 2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1234 Of 2005

Advocates:
K.K.TRIPATHI,

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a partner does not have the right to seek renewal of a license in his individual name under the U. P. Excise (Settlement of Licence for Retail sale of Country Liquor) Rules 2002.

Headnote:

renewal - Licensee's Right to Renewal - Rule 7, 9, 10 of the U. P. Excise (Settlement of Licence for Retail sale of Country Liquor) Rules 2002 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 5, 8(f) of the Rules and referred to previous judgments to establish that the petitioner, as a partner, did not have the right to seek renewal in his individual name under the Rules. The court emphasized that the renewal of the license could only be in favor of the original licensee and not in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the lack of right for the petitioner to claim renewal as a matter of right or course.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who was a partner with the original licensee, sought renewal of the license in his individual name for the excise year 2005-06. The licensing authority rejected the renewal application, stating that the license could only be renewed in favor of the original licensee.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, as a partner, did not have the right to seek renewal in his individual name under the Rules. The court emphasized that the renewal of the license could only be in favor of the original licensee and not in favor of the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as a partner, had the right to seek renewal of the license in his individual name for the excise year 2005-06.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as a partner, did not have the right to seek renewal in his individual name under the Rules, emphasizing that the renewal of the license could only be in favor of the original licensee.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

RAJES KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of the Special secretary, Government of U. P. on the revision petition file. In the petitioner.

( 2 ) FOLLOWING relief has been claimed : (i) issue a, writ, order or direction in the nature of certierari quashing the impugned orders dated 5. 4. 2005, 22. 4. 2005 and 2. 4. 2005 passed by respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively (Annexure No. 12, 10 and 9 to this writ petition ). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to renewed the licence of the petitioner of liquor shop for the year of 2005-2006 within a stipulated period as may be fixed by this Honble Court. (iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE tacts stated in the writ petition are that a excise shop situated in Mohammadpur was allotted in the excise year 2002-03 in the name of Smt. Kalawati, wife of Sri Siyaram Bhaskar, resident of Village and Post Raipur. P. S. K: amganj, district Farrukhabad. The said shop was renewed for the excise year 2003-04 in the partnership of the petitioner and Smt. Kalawati and renewed licence has been issued on 07. 06. 2003, For the excise year 2004-05 petitioner moved renewal application with the [affidavit of Smt. Kalavvati stating therein thai 3ie will not do the business and her partner wanted to do the business, thus, renewal may be made in your of the petitioner. The lisputed shop uas renewed on the basis of at the wriit of Smt. Kalawati in favour of the petitioner for the excise year 2004-05 on 01. 04. 2004. The renewed licence dmed 01. 04. 2004 for the excise year 2004-05 has been filed as annexure-4 to the V\ik petition, For the excise year 2005-06 petitioner applied for the renewal of the licence and submitted Treasury challan of Rs. 2,000/- on 15. 03. 2005 and Rs. 4,000/- for the excise year 2005-06. It is alleged that the petitioner was also advised to deposit the licence fee for the excise year 2005-06 at Rs. 91,800/ -. Petitioner has been issued a show cause notice on 17. 03. 2005 from the office on district excise Officer to show cause why the renewal application may not be rejected. Thereafter, vide order dated 02. 04. 2005 renewal application has been rejected by District Excise officer. Against order dated 02. 04. 2005 petitioner filed appeal before the Additional commissioner. The said appeal was also rejected on 22. 04. 2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed revision before the State Government Revision has been dismissed by the impugned order. Renewal of the licence has been denied on the around that the petitioner is not the original licencee of the shop. The original licencee was Smt. Kalawati, wife of Sri Siyaram bhaskarm life excise year 2002-03 and licence was renewed for the excise yea, 2003-04 in the partnership of the petitioner and Smt. Kalawati It is claimed that the licence for the excise year 2004 -. 05 has also been renewed in the partnership with Smt. Kalawati and since the petitioner was not the original licencee, the licence for the excise year 2005-06 in his individual name as sole licencee could not be issued.

( 4 ) THE notice were issued to all the respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are represented by the learned Standing Counsel. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits have been filed on their behalf Petitioner has also filed the rejoinder affidavit. Despite the notice served, respondent No. 5 has not put his appearance and has not filed any courier affidavit.

( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has set out its case as follows: that the brief facts of the case are that initially the license for the aforesaid country Iiquor shop was settled for the year 2002-03 in favour of one Smt. Kalawati W/o Shri Siya Ram R/0 399 raipur Khas, P. S.














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top