Disposed

Kuldeep Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Excise Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2024/8447/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench disposed of a writ petition regarding premises possession under an excise license. The court directed the petitioner to vacate the godown on 01.04.2025. It dismissed malafide inquiries due to non-impleadment of the concerned officer but permitted the petitioner to initiate civil or criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to vacate the premises on 01.04.2025 and hand over peaceful possession to the District Excise Officer, Hardoi.

Kuldeep Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75007-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8447 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kuldeep Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Excise Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The petitioner has not complied the order dated 27.09.2024. If there is any videography of the concerned Officer demanding bribe and threatening him, then, the petitioner can lodge an F.I.R. or file a complaint, as the case may be, under the criminal laws.

¶8

Considering the fact that petitioner has not impleaded the concerned opposite party we can not consider questions of malafide in this case but this is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek other remedies as aforesaid.

¶9

Let the District Excise Officer, Hardoi produce relevant documents containing the proposal for construction of a building on the very land on which the Godown already exists regarding which a license has been issued to the petitioner for the year 2024-2025.

¶10

At this stage, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that if the petitioner vacates the godown on the expiry of the period of License i.e. 31.03.2025, then, the Annexure No. 1 would not be pressed by the District Excise Officer, Hardoi.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner says that his client is ready to vacate the godown on 01.04.2025.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid statement, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation/direction that the petitioner shall vacate the premises which is in his possession in pursuance to the License dated 27.03.2024 contained Annexure No. 2 on 01.04.2025 and handover peaceful possession thereof to the District Excise Officer, Hardoi.

¶13

This shall however not come in the way of the petitioner in initiating proceedings, if he so chooses, against the concerned Officer under the civil or criminal law, as the case may be, in view of the averments made in the writ petition.

¶14

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 13.11.2024 R.K.P.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kuldeep Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Excise Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Excise Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar Lko Thru. Chief Manager and Authorized Officer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 8 Others

Abhishek Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Awas Evam Shahari Niyojn Lko.

M/S Engineer Mukesh,Thru. Its Partner Mukesh Agarwal vs Union of India Min. of Finance Deptt. of Revenue and 2 Others

Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Lucknow Vs Madhu Kapoor

Chandra Pratap Tiwari Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Petroleum and Gas, New Delhi and Others

Hari Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others