JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.02.2016 whereby 06 country liquor and 02 Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) licenses of the petitioner were cancelled and the security as well as the licence fee was forfeited in exercise of powers under Section 34 of The United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 as well as the appellate order dated 22.03.2016 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the order dated 17.02.2017 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner before the State Government was rejected.

3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was granted six licences of country liquor shop in District Amethi in exercise of the powers conferred under the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002 (in short 'the Rules 2002') and was also granted two licences for selling foreign liquor in District Amethi in terms of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Excise [Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Foreign Liquor (Excluding Beer and Wine Rules)] Rules, 2001 (in short 'the Rules 2001'). On 28.01.2016, an FIR came to be lodged in Case Crime No.103 of 2016, under Section 60 of the Excise Act read with Sections 419 and 420 IPC at Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi against one Guddu Singh and Babblu Singh. The said two accused took the name of the petitioner and in pursuant to the said statement, the petitioner was arrested under the said FIR. The allegations as contained in the FIR referred to violation of Section 60 of the Excise Act read with Sections 419 and 420 IPC and it was also stated that unauthorized liquor was found in a rice mill owned by the petitioner.

4. Subsequently, the proceedings were initiated for suspending the licences (six in number) in exercise of the powers conferred under the Rules 2002 and the Rules, 2001. A notice was served to the petitioner on 04.02.2016 referring to the FIR and alleging therein that there appeared to be a violation of Section 34 of the Excise Act and the Rules of 2002. The petitioner put in appearance and denied the allegations levelled against him, however, orders were passed suspending the six licences granted to the petitioner in respect of the six shops vide order dated 21.02.2016. Thereafter on 22.02.2016, the petitioner was called upon for personal hearing in terms of Rule 21(2) of the 2002 Rules. The petitioner filed a reply denying his involvement with the offence in question, he also filed his written submissions, however, an order dated 24.02.2016 was passed cancelling the six licences and through the same order, the basic license fee, the license fee and the security deposit were forfeited in favour of the State Government. Aggrieved against the said order cancelling the license, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Excise Commissioner, which came to be dismissed on 22.03.2016.

5. Subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, a final report was filed in favour of the petitioner in the Case Crime No.103 of 2016 wherein nothing incriminating was found against the petitioner and only the other two accused were charge-sheeted. It is also relevant that challenging the appellate order, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the State Government and during the pendency of the revision, the petitioner by means of an affidavit brought the subsequent development as took place in Case Crime No.103 of 2016 before the Revisional Authority and pleaded that as the sole ground for cancellation of the licenses and the action of forfeiture of security and licence fee was based upon the lodging of the FIR, in which ultimately a final report was filed in favour of the petitioner, the revision deserves to be allowed. The Revisional Authority, by the impugned order proceeded to dismiss the revision. On perusal of the said order