Dismissed

Vinod and Anr. v. Department of Excise and Anr.

Delhi HC8 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/161/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the husband and wife challenging an order shifting a liquor vend. Relying on precedent, the Court held that only the license holder has locus standi, rejected the owner's claim of financial loss, and found public will against the vend adequate grounds for shifting, irrelevant to CCTV compliance. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

Vinod and Anr. Vs Department of Excise and Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 161/2016 & CM No.696/2016 (for stay)

¶4

VINOD AND ANR ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Pawan Upadhyay & Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advs.

¶6

Versus

¶7

DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra, Adv. for R-1. Mr. N.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 08.01.2016

¶12

CM No.697/2016 (for exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶14

The application is disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(C) 161/2016

¶16

The petition impugns the order dated 21^st December, 2015 of the Commissioner (Excise) of dismissal of appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation (DTTDC) against the order dated 30^th October, 2015 of the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) directing the respondent no.2 DTTDC to shift the L-6 liquor vend functioning at 18, Old Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi.

¶17

This petition has been filed not by the respondent no.2 DTTDC whose appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order but by Vinod (petitioner no.1) and Poonam (petitioner no.2).

¶18

W.P.(C) 161/2016

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Not finding Vinod to be having anything to do with the matter, it has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners why he has been impleaded.

¶21

The counsel states that Vinod is the husband of Poonam and has been incorrectly impleaded and in fact ought not to have been made a petitioner and the petition should have been on behalf of Poonam only who is the owner of shop No.18, Old Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi with respect to which respondent no.2 DTTDC had obtained the L-6 licence from the excise authorities for operating a liquor vend.

¶22

I have in the order dated 15^th December, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.11619/2015 titled Vandana Khanna Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi inter alia held, i) that the locus to challenge such an order can be of the licensee i.e. the DTTDC only and not of the owner of the shop; ii) that the owner of the shop cannot claim any locus on the ground of being deprived of rental and share of profits from sale of liquor in the said shop; iii) that when closure / shifting has been ordered after satisfying that the residents of the locality are opposed to the existence of the liquor vend and that the liquor vend can be a source of nuisance and breach of peace, this is a question of fact which is not interfearable in exercise of power of judicial review; iv) there is no absolute right to carry on business in sale of liquor and trade therein is controlled; reference in this regard was made to Khoday Distilleries Vs. State of Karnataka (1995) 1 SCC 574 and Krishna Kumar Narula Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1967 SC 1368); v) once the authorities concerned and competent to assess the “public will” have in their wisdom assessed that the said shop is not fit for use as liquor vend, the same W.P.(C) 161/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶23

would be a relevant factor in the matter of grant of licence / allowing liquor vend to continue.

¶24

The position here is identical save that in the first round of proceedings before the excise authorities, the petitioner no.2 Poonam being the owner was not heard and was subsequently heard and order was passed after taking into consideration her arguments and contentions. However the same does not affect the reasoning given in Vandana Khanna supra.

¶25

The petitioners here have additionally relied upon Circular dated 9^th June, 2015 of the Commissioner of Excise, GNCTD requiring liquor vends to have CCTV cameras to record if anyone contrary to law consumes liquor outside the liquor vend. The counsel for the petitioner on the basis thereof has contended that the grievance owing to which the liquor vend has been ordered to be shifted can be taken care of by enforcement of the said circular and the said circular and the effect thereof has not been taken into consideration by the excise authorities while ordering the closure / shifting of the liquor vend.

¶26

In my view the installation of the CCTV cameras would only facilitate apprehending and punishing the violators but once the authorities have concluded that the “public will” is against the existence of the liquor vend in the said shop, the reasoning aforesaid would hold the fray.

¶27

For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.

¶28

No costs.

¶29

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶30

JANUARY 08, 2016 „gsr‟..

¶31

W.P.(C) 161/2016

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Vinod and Anr. v. Department of Excise and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod and Anr. v. Department of Excise and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Arora Vs Delhi University and Ors.

Pt.Shradha Ram Trust Committee Vs Directorate of Education & Ors.

Prashant Bhushan Vs Union of India & Anr.

Union Public Service Commission Vs Amitesh Mishra and Ors.

B. Badrinath Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Shweta Kapoor Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Karuna Chhatwal Vs Government of NCT Delhi

Ram Kishan Vs Rajesh Yadav and Ors.

SBI Vs Shri Rajesh Chandra

Srsd Senior Secondary School Vs Government of NCT & Ors.

The Public Information Officer, National Institute of Open Schooling (N.I.O.S.) Vs Kishlay & Anr.

Thdc India Limited Vs Arun Kumar Jain

M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Amar Bhardwaj Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.