Ratikant Samal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2025WPC/1372/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 — excise — suspension of country made liquor shop licence by Collector, Mahasamund, order dated 3-8-2015 for one week — writ petitions disposed of, not decided on merits, licence period expired — liberty to file civil suit for compensation — relief clause 10.3 examinable by trial Court — WPC No. 1371 of 2015 & WPC No. 1372 of 2015 — High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur — Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. — 06/01/2025 — NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Liberty/direction to the petitioners to file a civil suit before the civil Court for grant of compensation for the loss occurred due to the impugned order; the compensation relief (clause 10.3) left to be examined by the learned trial Court. The legality of the impugned suspension order was not adjudicated on merits. ¶¶36

Ratikant Samal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 3-8-2015 passed by the Collector, District Mahasamund, suspending the petitioners' country made liquor shop licences for one week, was legal, valid and proper. +1 more

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

The relief sought by the petitioners in clause 10.3 of the relief clause (compensation) can be examined by the learned trial Court.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

Both writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may take recourse to file a civil suit before the civil Court for grant of compensation for the loss occurred due to the impugned order.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — WPC Nos. 1371 & 1372 of 2015, decided 06-01-2025 (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.). Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Collector, District Mahasamund's order dated 3-8-2015 suspending the petitioners' country made liquor shop licences for one week (4-8-2015 to 8-8-2015). Following inspection on 24-5-2015 and a show cause notice, and upon counsel's submission that the petitions had become infructuous as the licence period had expired, the Court did not adjudicate the legality of the suspension order. Holding that the compensation relief sought in clause 10.3 could be examined by the learned trial Court, both writ petitions were disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may file a civil suit before the civil Court for grant of compensation for loss caused by the impugned order. Co-ordinate Bench decision in WPC No 1098 of 2012 (decided 8-10-2024) referred. Agreed licence payments recorded: Rs.2,49,04,286/- (C.S.2 (gha), 2015-16) and Rs.54,84,143/- (F.L.1 (gha), 2015-16).

2025:CGHC:706

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1371 of 2015

¶6

Trilochan Das S/o- Shri Jadunath Das Aged About 36 Years R/oGram Baratha Basudevpur Thana- Mahanga, District- Cuttak Orissa , Orissa

¶7

--- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Cum Commissioner Commercial Tax Excise Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Collector, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶11

Assistant Commissioner Excise District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶12

Excise Sub- Inspector Circle- Mahasamund City, DistrictMahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

WPC No. 1372 of 2015

¶15

Ratikant Samal S/o Shri Purshottam Samal Aged About 55 Years R/o- Gram -Mohanapur Basudebapur Thana- Mahanga, DistrictCuttack Orissa, Orissa

--- Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Cum Commissioner Commercial Tax Excise Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶20

Collector District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶21

Assistant Commissioner Excise District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶22

Excise Sub- Inspector Circle- Baghbahra District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

For Petitioners	:	Mr. Mateen Siddiqui and Mr. Amrito Das, Advocates.
For Respondent(s) /State	:	Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶25

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶26

Order on Board

¶27

06/01/2025

¶28

The petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questing the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 3-8-2015 passed by the Collector, Distirct Mahasamund whereby the Collector has suspended the licence of the petitioners’ shops of country made liquor, Mahasamund for a period of one week from 4-8-2015 to 8-8-2015.

¶29

Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner in WPC No 1371of 2015 after obtaining licence under C.S.2 (gha) for the yer 2015-16 has started running country made liquor shop and paid an amount of Rs.2,49,04,286/- in terms of agreement arrived at between the parties. The petitioner in WPC No 1372 of 2015

¶30

¶31

after obtaining licence under F.L.1 (gha) for the year 2015-16 has started running country made liquor shop and paid an amount of Rs.54,84,143/- in terms of agreement arrived at between the parties. The petitioners while complying all the conditions of the license successfully were running the shop. On 24-5-2015 Excise Sub Inspector has inspected the shop of the petitioners and found certain alleged discrepancies. By this, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners whereby they are directed to submit their reply as to why action may not be taken taken against the petitioners.

¶32

The petitioners have reply to the said notice stating that due to bona fide mistake, it was submitted that stock register could not be maintained on the particular date when the shop was inspected as the concerned employee who manages the Register was on leave and other employees are not conversant with the stock register. Thereafter the Collector canceled the licence of the liquor shop.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these petitions have become infructuous as the licence period which has been allowed to the petitioners has already expired, therefore, these petitions have become infructuous. However, they would further submit that co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No 1098 of 2012 decided on 8-10-2024 has considered the relief clause 10.3 wherein liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file a civil suit seeking compensation before the competent civil court, in accordance with law.

¶34

From the record it reveals that the relief sought by the petitioners in 10.3 of relief clause of the petition, can be examined by the learned trial Court. Considering this aspect of the matter both the

¶35

¶36

writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may take recourse to file a civil suit before civil Court for grant of compensation for the loss occurred due to the impugned order.

¶37

RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU

¶38

Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.01.07 13:06:50 +0530

¶39

Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE

¶40

Raju

Ratikant Samal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratikant Samal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Agrawal Vs Property Tax Assessment Officer

Shankar Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bajrang Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Gupta Vs Brigunath Shriwastaw

Arun Kumar Pandey Vs Smt. Ranu Soni

Trilochan Das Vs State Of Chhattisgarh