Dismissed

Bablu Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2022WPC/972/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a letter rejecting his refund claim of Rs. 16 lakh against bar license fees. The petitioner argued the fee was illegal as the business, though shifted from the highway, remained within 500 meters, relying on an Apex Court judgment. The Court held that grant of license is not a fundamental right and refused to interfere with the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and no relief was granted to the petitioner.

Bablu Kumar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No. 972 of 2020

¶2

….....

¶3

Bablu Kumar Mahto …. ..... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand & Others

¶6

…. ..... Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶8

…......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents/State : Mrs. Vandana Sinha, A.C. to Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.-II.

¶9

02/03.03.2022.

¶10

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and learned counsel for the respondents/State, Mrs. Vandana Sinha, A.C. to Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.-II.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has preferred this writ petition, being aggrieved by the letter issued by the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Ranchi, as contained in Memo No. 173 dated 03.02.2019, whereby prayer of the petitioner for refund of Rs. 12,00,000/- against Bar / Restaurant License for Financial Year 2017-18 and Refund / adjust Rs. 4,00,000/- against Bar / Restaurant License for Financial Year 201819, total Rs. 16,00,000/- has been rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner was granted a license in the name of “Mehta Bar & Restaurant” and the petitioner has earlier came before this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 4680/2018 for a direction upon the respondents to return Rs. 12 Lacs which was deposited by the petitioner towards the bar license fee for the financial year 2017-18 for only four days till the end of the financial year i.e. 31.03.2018 pursuant to the verbal order of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Ranchi.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per Schedule-XVI, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the license fee of bar and restaurant situated near National Highway was Rs. 12,00,000/-, but petitioner has subsequently shifted his bar and restaurant from National Highways33, which was situated at a distance of 500 meter from National

¶14

-2-

¶15

Highway within Gagari Gram Panchayat under Khata No. 139, Pot No. 806, Area-0.15 decimals, which comes under the Village, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Balu & Another , reported in (2017) 2 SCC 281 , wherein it has been held at para-29.5 that:-

¶16

29.5 No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or State highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or State highway; and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 m of the outer edge of the national or State highway or of a service lance along the highway.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that the demand is illegal.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that grant of license is not a fundamental right. The condition has been imposed by the Excise Department to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- as petitioner's earlier license was for bar and restaurant on the National Highway. Even after shifting the bar and restaurant from the National Highway, the same comes within 500 meters from the National Highway, as such, this Court may not grant mandamus in that type of writ petition.

¶19

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that bar and restaurant of the petitioner is not within 500 meter from the National Highway.

¶20

Considering the disputed question of fact, the grant of license in excise matter is not a fundamental right, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶22

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶23

Sunil/-

Bablu Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

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

Mrkr Pallavi Upakar Jv through Its Authorized Signatory M Vasudeva Reddy Vs East Central Railways Represented through General Manager

Mrkr Pallavi Upakar Jv through Its Authorized Signatory M Vasudeva Reddy Vs East Central Railways Represented through General Manager

Ms Vijaya Homes And Anr. Vs Gopal Chandra Tiwary And Anr.

Sports Authority of India And an Vs Union of India And Ors.

Ujjwal Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Food

Sudeshwar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand