Ravi Nayak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ravi Nayak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Directions to respondent no. 3 (District Magistrate) to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's representations, permitting a fresh detailed representation, within four weeks of presentation of a copy of the order with the fresh representation, if any.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondents to release the amount of security deposited by him (with interest) under the excise licence subsequently cancelled and forfeited. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court did not itself adjudicate the entitlement to refund of the security deposit; determination of that claim was routed through the appropriate order to be passed by respondent no. 3 on the petitioner's representations.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no. 3 (the District Magistrate) is ordered to pass an appropriate order on the representations made by the petitioner; the petitioner may additionally file a fresh detailed representation, if so advised; the exercise is to be completed within four weeks from presentation of a copy of this order, with the fresh representation if any, before that authority.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (DB: Arun Bhansali, C.J. and Kshitij Shailendra, J.), WRIT TAX No. - 507 of 2025 (Ravi Nayak v. State of U.P. and 3 others), disposed on 27.2.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:27195-DB). Petitioner held a 2012-13 retail country-liquor licence for Indergarh, Kannauj and deposited licence fee and security deposit; following an FIR under Section 60(2) of the Excise Act and a registered case under Sections 272, 420 IPC, a show-cause notice of 22.03.2013 led to an order dated 30.03.2013 cancelling the licence and forfeiting the security deposit and licence fee. Acquitted on 31.01.2019, the petitioner applied on 25.09.2019 and again represented in 2023 for refund, without decision. The Court, with the department raising no objection, directed respondent no. 3 (District Magistrate) to pass an appropriate order on the representations, allowing a fresh detailed representation, within four weeks of presentation of the order copy; entitlement to refund was left to that determination. No case-law precedent engaged; no quantum stated.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27195-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 507 of 2025

Petitioner :- Ravi Nayak Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi for Abhinav Dwivedi

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Kushwaha (S.C.)

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to release the amount of security deposited by the petitioner along with interest.

It is, inter alia, indicated that petitioner was given license for retail sale of country liquor for the year 2012-13 for the area Indergarh, Kannauj. The petitioner deposited the requisite license fee and security deposit. An F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner under Section 60(2) of the Excise Act and the case under Sections 272, 420 IPC was registered against petitioner. He was sent to jail and was granted bail after five days. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.03.2013 as to why his license may not be cancelled and security deposit be forfeited. No response was filed by the petitioner. By order dated 30.03.2013, the order was passed cancelling petitioner's license and forfeiting the security deposit and license fee. It appears that after trial, on 31.01.2019 the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Whereafter an application dated 25.09.2019 has been filed, seeking return of the security deposit along with the copy of the judgment. Whereafter further representation has been made in the year 2023

and now the present petition has been filed confining the claim to return of the security deposit.

Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that despite passage of sufficiently long time since filing of the representations by the petitioner in the year 2019/2023 the same have not been decided and the security deposit has not been refunded to which the petitioner is entitled and therefore, the respondent may be directed to decide the pending representations.

Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the department, has no objection to the decision on the representations made by the petitioners.

In the overall fact situation of the case, wherein the representations made by the petitioner continuously remained pending with the respondents, we deem it appropriate and therefore order the respondent no. 3 to pass an appropriate order on the representations made by the petitioner. Petitioner would be free to file a fresh detailed representation, if so, advised. The requisite would be done by the District Magistrate within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order, along with fresh representation, if any, is presented by the petitioner with the said authority.

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Sharad/ P. Sri.

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,C.J.)

Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad