The main legal point established in the judgment is that remission of license fee and compensation is not justified when the closure of the shop is due to the fault of the licensee.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order of the State Government passed in revision dated 10. 12. 2003, by which the claim of the petitioner for the remission of licence fee during the closure period has been rejected.

( 2 ) FOR the Excise Year 2002-03 petitioner was granted licence to run the country liquor shop by the lottery system in the area Deputyganj. It is alleged that the licencing committee published a declaration of the country made liquor shop in district Bulandshahar mentioning therein security money, licence fee, place etc. Petitioner was allotted the shop at Sl. No. 5 of the list. In the said list, no specific place of shop in the area of Deputyganj was mentioned. The respondent No. 4 has directed the petitioner to furnish the location of the shop in Deputyganj area alongwith boundary and other details of the shop, in which he proposed to run the retail country liquor shop. In pursuance of the allotment, petitioner deposited the required amount in the form of security to the extent of Rs. 5,41,200/- and licence fee. The minimum guaranteed quota was fixed at 66,000 bulk liter per annum. Petitioner has also submitted the details of the shop and boundary where the shop was running in the previous excise year. It is claimed that the respondents were fully satisfied with the details furnished by the petitioner inasmuch as all the requirements were fulfilled". Certificate for the Excise Year 2002-03 was issued. Petitioner accordingly, invested several lacs of rupees for the purpose to run the shop. It is alleged that the petitioner started running the shop from 08. 04. 2003. It appears that the place where the country liquor shop was running in the earlier Excise Year was demolished by the landlord for reconstruction. Thus, the dealer applied for shifting of the shop to Lal Talab, Deputyganj. It appears that by order dated 08. 07. 2002 District Excise Officer directed the petitioner to shift the shop from Lal Talab, Deputyganj to Manjar Park in pursuance of the order dated 06. 07. 2002 passed by Collector, Bulandshahar. However, petitioner shifted the shop at B. K. D. A. Complex, deputyganj and started running his shop. District Excise Officer vide order dated 04. 08. 2002 again directed the petitioner to shift the shop from B. K. D. A. complex to some other place at deputyganj area. Reason for shifting of the shop was that the petitioner shop was situated near gurudwara and protest was made by the Sikh community. It appears that the petitioner could not shift the shop, thus it was sealed. Thereafter, vide order dated 31. 08. 2002 petitioner requested collector, Bulandshahar to open the seal of the shop and permit him to shift the shop from b. K. D. A. Complex, Deputyganj to Setho Wali Gali, Deputyganj, district Bulandshahar. Petitioner has submitted the boundaries of the proposed site. Collector, Bulandshahar vide notice dated 21. 09. 2002 again directed the petitioner to search another premises because there is alleged protest by the Vyapar Mandal for the aforesaid premises. It appears that when the petitioner could not shift his shop, the licence was cancelled on 11. 02. 2003. Petitioner claimed that he was forced to close the shop for 65 days, prior to the date of cancellation. Petitioner therefore, claimed for the remission of the licence fee for the period during which the petitioner shop was closed. District Magistrate vide order dated 11. 02. 2003 cancelled the licence on the ground that the petitioner could not lift 37273. 26 bulk litre liquor against minimum guaranteed quota and could not deposit the licence fee amounting to Rs. 30,64,607/- and after adjusting the amount of security deposited at Rs. 5,41,200/-, the demand of Rs. 25,23,407/- was raised.

( 3 ) PETITIONER filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Lincesing and Industrial development) UP. The appellate authority vide order dated 15. 09.