Point of Law : For want of the inspection report before this Court, it cannot be presumed that the substance of the inspection report or the summary of the documents was furnished and that the summary was not misleading. It is also a matter of conjecture whether the relevant facts contained in the inspection report necessary to file an appropriate reply by the petitioner, were declared in the show-cause notice-cum-order.

JUDGMENT :

Jayant Banerji, J.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava and Sri Manoj Kumar Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi and Sri Jagdish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2. The facts, as appearing from the writ petition are, that the petitioner, which was initially registered on 08.09.1910 as a Joint Stock Company, was allotted Corporate Identity Number U51226DL1910PL299886 and altered the provisions of its Memorandum of Association. The order of the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, confirming the alteration was registered under Section 13(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 on 17.05.2016. The petitioner has, as one of its main objects, preparation and manufacture of liquor, ethanol, etc., and to carry on trade in the aforesaid product. Under the provisions of United Provinces Excise Act, 19101 the petitioner was granted a licence to distil liquor which was renewed by the Excise Commissioner, the respondent no. 3, by means of its order dated 15.5.2018 and PD-2 licence was issued for the Excise Year 2018-19, 2019-20, that is, from 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2020. The PD-2 licence of the petitioner was further renewed for the Excise Year 2020-21 and 2021-22 and by an order dated 12.3.2020, the respondent no.3 also issued Act 1910 a licence to manufacture Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) for a period of two years. The petitioner also has a bottling plant of Indian Made Foreign Liqour (IMFL) in the company premises, for which a separate licence in Form FL-3(A) was issued by the Excise Commissioner, U.P. for the Excise Year 2019-20 and 2020-21. The petitioner has also obtained a licence for storage of IMFL in Form FL-1.

3. A raid was conducted on the petitioner’s premises on 3.3.2021 and a show cause notice-cum-order of suspension of licence PD-2 dated 6.3.2021 was issued by respondent no.3 to the petitioner to submit a reply with regard to the inspection done by a joint team of Excise officials and a Special Task Force. Reference was made in the notice to a Truck No. UP-11-B.T.0935 which was intercepted and which was carrying 1500 boxes of country made liqour. It was also stated in the notice that the inspection was carried out in the petitioner’s distillery and glaring irregularities were found. The allegation was that the forged/duplicate bar codes were being used by the petitioner on the liqour bottles and it was also transporting illegal liquor twice on one gate pass from the distillery. A reply dated 10.3.2021 was submitted by the petitioner to the aforesaid show cause notice denying all the allegations made in the show cause notice-cum-suspension order. It was specifically stated in the reply that it was not possible to comment on the so-called irregularities because no copy of the inspection report, which formed the basis of the show-cause notice, was given to the representative of the petitioner nor was the same enclosed with the notice. However, by means of the impugned order dated 01.04.2021, the Excise Commissioner, respondent no.3, cancelled the license PD-2 of the petitioner. The revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act 1910 was also dismissed by an order of the respondent no.2 on 25.08.2021.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have failed to recover any evidence from the premises of the petitioner pertaining to the forged/duplicate bar code or illegal production of ENA/spirit. It is contended that by means of an order dated 1.4.2021, the respondent no.3, without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, passed an order cancelling PD-2 licence of the petitioner with a further direction forfeiting all amounts deposited by the petitioner towards the PD-2 license, with no compensation or refund. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely on the basis of an FIR lodged on 3.3.2021,