IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.02.2025 Ishwar Dayal ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Excise and Taxation Department, Faridabad and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Impugned order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the ld. Additional District Judge Faridabad, District Faridabad, whereby the Civil Misc. Appeal against order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad whereby application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the petitioner was dismissed in Civil Suit No. 2054 of 2024 dated 20.07.2024 titled as 'Ishwar Dayal vs. Excise and Taxation Department etc.'

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts below were in a patent error in not granting the ad interim injunction to the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC as the petitioner had prima facie established on record that the liquor vend of the petitioner was existing and functioning prior to that of respondent No.2. Therefore, as per the applicable Rules, it was mandated upon respondent No.1 to first shift the vend of defendant/respondent No.2.

Instead, the vend of the petitioner is being sought to be removed.

3. Learned counsel submits that the fact that the liquor vend of the petitioner was operational prior to that of respondent no.2 is also evident from the fact that the previous licensee, namely, Valjendra Singh had been running the liquor vend on the same location which is prime location. The learned courts below have also not considered that the vend of the petitioner was functioning for 37 days continuously, and for that period permit was given for the same site of the petitioner. The impugned orders have therefore been passed without appropriately appreciating the factual circumstances.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in great detail.

6. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present suit (Annexure P- 1) seeking permanent injunction that the defendant/respondent No.1 be restrained from cancelling the license of the petitioner; and not to remove/demolish the structure of the liquor shop forcibly, illegally in any manner whatsoever and by adopting coercive methods. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-2) seeking ad interim injunction. The said application was dismissed by the ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Faridabad vide order dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-3). The appeal (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner against the order dated 25.10.2024 has been dismissed by the ld. Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-5).

7. The petitioner is aggrieved of the removal of his liquor vend from the location where it is situated. The allocation of spot for running liquor vend is governed by Condition no.1.3.5 of the Excise Policy 2024-25, and the same reads as follows: –

“1.3.5 LOCATION OF VENDS/SUB-VENDS: There has to be a minimum distance of 2.0 KMs between any two main vends or between any two sub-vends or between any main vend and sub-vend belonging to two different licensees in rural areas. In case of dispute between a main vend and a sub-vend, preference shall be given to the main vend. In other cases, preference shall be given to the main vend/sub-vend set up earlier in time. The rural vend/sub vend of a zone shall also have to maintain a minimum distance of 2.0 KMs from any urban vend belonging to a different licensee. It is further provided that DETC (Excise) will be the competent authority to resolve the conflicts and ensure the compliance of the above provisions for the zones situa