Dismissed

Yudhishtar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Feb 2012CWP/8546/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-refund of an amount deposited for a liquor vend. The petition was dismissed without expressing an opinion on merits, citing disputed questions of fact regarding the vend's operation, and directed the petitioner to file a civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to seek remedy by way of civil suit to seek refund; writ petition disposed.

Yudhishtar Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.8546 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No.8546 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision: 27.02.2012

Yudhishtar

----- Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶12

Present:Mr. Jasmer Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioenr.

¶13

Mr. S.S.Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶15

The petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for refund of the amount in respect of liquor vend L-14A which was allotted to him in Village Rajpur, District Sonepat.

¶16

Brief facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. For the year 2011-12, the petitioner was allotted a liquor vend shop L- 14A for a sum of Rs.20 lacs on 15.3.2011. The petitioner deposited a total sum of Rs.3,14,500/-. Residents of Village Rajpur agitated against the opening of the vend. Similarly, residents of Village Lalheri Kalan also submitted an application to the Excise and Taxation Officer, Sonepat for closing down the liquor vend. A notice dated

¶17

CWP No.8546 of 2011

¶18

¶19

26.4.2011 was issued to the petitioner by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Sonepat for shifting the place of liquor vend from Village Rajpur to Village Lalheri Kalan. Ultimately, the liquor vend was closed. The petitioner submitted a number of representations to the authorities for refund of the amount deposited by him but till date no action has been taken. Hence this petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allotted a liquor vend shop L-14A for a sum of Rs.20 lacs on 15.3.2011 and had deposited an amount of Rs.3,14,500/-. However, on agitation by the residents of the village, the petitioner was not allowed to open the liquor vend and operate the same in the said Village. Claim for refund was made which has not been allowed by the respondents which has necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court seeking mandamus for direction to the respondents to refund the same.

¶21

Upon notice having been issued, reply has been filed by the respondents. It has been stated that the petitioner was allotted a liquor vend shop L-14A on 15.3.2011 for Village Rajpur having command area of Village Lalheri Kalan and Sub-Vend Bhurry. The residents of the Village Rajpur protested against the opening of the liquor vend in the village, and therefore, the petitioner could not open the vend in the village. Learned State counsel has produced a videograph in respect of running of liquor vend in Village Lalheri Kalan illegally without the permission of the authorities and has seriously disputed that the petitioner is not running any liquor vend

¶22

CWP No.8546 of 2011

¶23

¶24

and, thus, entitled to refund of the amount. The videograph is taken on record as Mark 'A'.

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits, since disputed questions of fact with regard to operation of liquor vend legally or illegally by the petitioner in Village Lalheri Kalan are involved, this Court refrains from interfering in the writ jurisdiction and relegates the petitioner to

¶26

seek his remedy by way of civil suit to seek refund, if so advised.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

February 27, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) 'gs' Judge

Yudhishtar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yudhishtar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurdarshan Singh & Anr. Vs Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and Ors.

Praveen Chawla Vs Union of India and Others

Maninder Pal Singh Brar Vs Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Fedration Ltd.

Ashok Kumar Vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

Gagandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab