A writ petition challenging the demand notice and order regarding closure and dues for a Government Liquor shop was dismissed. The Court held that the appellate authority acted properly as the shop was shifted without permission and held up valid dues.
The writ petition was dismissed, interim orders were vacated, and the contingency notice was dropped.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 5150 of 2008
“As per condition of the sale notice it is the duty of the appellant to arrange suitable place to carry on the business that the govt. will no way responsible for providing place for location of the shop. Since the exclusive privilege holder has renewed the license for the year, 2006-2007, he is liable to pay the entire govt. dues. Hence the Respondents pray that the demand is justified.
It is clear that the Padmapur C.S. shop was operating smoothly at its first location since June, 2006. Thereafter the appellant shifted the shop to another place without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. The petitioner has deposited the consideration money for four months amounting to Rs.80,000/- and renewed the existing shop for the year, 2006-07. The Appellant has also levied the entire MGQ for the period from 28.5.2005 to 31.3.2006 and part MGQ for the year, April, 2006 to June, 2006. He has cleared up the monthly consideration money from 28.5.2005 to 31.3.2006 and 5 months consideration money for the year, 2006-07. Hence
2
I do not hold that the demand notice is illegal. The prayer of the Appellant being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.”
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that vide letter dated 28.06.2006 under Annexure-5, the Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack was intimated through Inspector of Excise, Rural, Cuttack, which is as follows:-
“I have informed (sic) all the facts(sic) to my Inspector and Superintendent of Excise verbally and seek (sic) their advice (sic) for further course of action. As per provision of rule opening of shop in non-objectionable site(sic) is sole responsibility of the licensee and premises of the shop is the local area of the shop.
In view of the above action as deemed proper may kindly be initiated for taking further course (sic) of action for operation of the shop and realization of arrear dues from the licensee from April 2006 to June 2006.”
3.2 Further, reliance is also placed on order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the Collector, Cuttack in Excise Appeal No.112 of 2007, by which the appeal was rejected being devoid of merit and the petitioner was directed to pay his dues.
3.3 Out attention is also drawn to Clause-3 of notice inviting applications for settlement of country liquor shops through lottery for the year 2005-2006 (Annexure-A/3 to the counter), wherein certain conditions were put forth for exclusive privilege, without prejudice to any of the provisions of the Act and rules made there under.
3
3.4 Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed controverting the stand of the opposite parties. In support of his contentions, i.e., for refund of the licence fee, petitioner has also relied upon two judgments of this Court in Ganapati Sahu Vs. State of Orissa and others , reported in 82 (1996) CLT 202 and Krushna Chandra Sahu and others Vs. State of Orissa and others , reported in 86(1998) CLT 637.
4.1 Therefore, the demand raised by the authority is just and proper. No interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
4.2 Interim orders passed on 15.05.2008 stand vacated.
4.3 In view of dismissal of the writ petition, CONTC No.781 of 2008 is dropped.
.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice
…………………..……… (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
ss
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the demand notice for Government dues and closure of the shop requires judicial interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganapati Sahu Vs. State of Orissa and othersReferred¶15
82 (1996) CLT 202
Krushna Chandra Sahu and others Vs. State of Orissa and othersReferred¶15
86(1998) CLT 637
The Petitioner
The State of Orissa
K.S. Jhaveri
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K.S. Jhaveri and K.R. Mohapatra
Parties & counsel
