Partly allowed

Rohit Tetarwal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2015CW/1380/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of a bar licence application and refusing a refund of fees. The court addressed the limitation period for refund claims and the legal requirement of land conversion for commercial use before granting a bar licence.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 8,80,010/- within one month with interest at 9% per annum for delay.

Rohit Tetarwal Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1380/2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1380/2015 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 1237/2015

¶5

ROHIT TETARWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS.

¶6

DATE OF ORDER : 16.03.2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶8

Mr. Sumit Tetarwal, brother of the petitioner present in person. Mr. Ratan Lal Meena, District Excise Officer(Prosecution), Jaipur, OIC, present in person for the respondents.

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

Since the lawyers are abstaining from Court work on the call given by Bar Council of India, therefore, Mr. Sumit Tetarwal, brother of the petitioner, Mr. Rohit Tetarwal has been permitted to argue the case.

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Rohit Tetarwal with the prayer that order dated 31.03.2014 refusing to not giving bar licence and not refunding the amount of Rs. 8,80,010/deposited by the petitioner be quashed and set aside. First part of the prayer is that the respondents be directed to grant bar licence to the petitioner. Alternative prayer is that the respondents be required to refund the amount of Rs. 8,80,010/- deposited by the petitioner as licence fee and registration fee on 10.06.2013 to the petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum.

¶12

The petitioner filed an application for grant of bar licence for his hotel and deposited a sum of Rs. 8,80,010/- as licence fee and

¶13

¶14

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1380/2015

¶15

application fee on 10.06.2013. The Additional Commissioner, Excise, Jaipur recommended for grant of bar licence to the petitioner's hotel vide order dated 09.07.2013. It is contended that original file from page 1 to 63 is with the respondents and the petitioner has also filed application under Right to Information Act, but he has been supplied with only cover note. Objection was raised by the Additional Commissioner(Law), Udaipur vide his letter dated 21.01.2014 that land of the petitioner has to be mutated for commercial purpose. It was on that basis that Additional Excise Commissioner(Law), Udaipur vide order dated 31.03.2014 has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of bar licence.

¶16

It is argued that Rule 3(8) of the Rajasthan Excise(Grant of Hotel Bar/Club Bar Licences) Rules, 1973(for short 'the Rules') has enumerated the reasons for which application for grant of licence can be rejected. Those reasons do not include the necessity of getting the land converted for commercial purpose. Besides, large number of business establishments are already there on Gandhi Path, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur and large number of hotels are situated there, therefore, mere non-conversion of the land of the petitioner's hotel for commercial purpose would not be an impediment for grant of licence of bar, especially when the Additional Commissioner, Excise, Zone Jaipur has recommended for the same.

¶17

It is contended that the petitioner came to learn about the aforesaid fact only in October, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 27.10.21014 to District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur(Annexure-7). The petitioner was called upon to appear on 19.12.2014 in the office of Additional Commissioner,

¶18

¶19

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1380/2015

¶20

Excise, Udaipur vide communication dated 15.12.2014. The petitioner appeared and submitted another application on 19.12.2014 (Annexure-9) requesting for refund of the fee deposited by him contending that he had received information about rejection of his application belatedly. Even then, application of the petitioner for refund has been rejected vide order dated 29.12.2014 on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit such application within six months from the date of rejection of his earlier application as per Rule 6 of the Rules.

¶21

The petitioner has submitted that he was looking after business of his father at Bundi and was not at Jaipur when the aforesaid order was passed and he was never informed about the order. The petitioner came to learn about the order only in first week of October, 2014 on 03.10.2014, when he enquired from Respondent No. 2. This averment has been made by the petitioner in Para 9 of the writ petition, which has not been specifically denied by the respondents and on the contrary, Mr. Ratan Lal Meena, Officer-inCharge, District Excise Officer(Prosecution), Jaipur has appeared and submitted that information with regard to aforesaid order was sent to the petitioner by District Excise Officer, Jaipur vide letter dated 23.04.2014, which was served on the petitioner on 09.05.2014. He has referred to the record and factual report sent by the District Excise Officer, Jaipur to the Government Counsel. Copy of the factual report has been taken on record.

¶22

It is surprising that in the reply to the writ petition, which is supported by affidavit of District Excise Officer(Prosecution), Jaipur, aforesaid fact has not been mentioned, but in any case if the period

¶23

¶24

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1380/2015

¶25

of six months is counted from 09.05.2014, date on which, according to respondents communication dated 23.04.2014 was served on the petitioner, such period would expire on 09.11.2014. The petitioner having already applied for refund on 27.10.2014, his application cannot be said to have been filed beyond the period of six months. Rule 6 of the Rules provides that the refund shall be made within a period of six months from the date of rejection of application. So long as the applicant is not apprised of the factum of rejection, he cannot be supposed to make application for refund and, therefore, order has to be interpreted in reasonable and workable manner to mean that the refund shall be made only within six months from the date applicant came to know the factum of rejection of his application, which in the present case was on 09.05.2014.

¶26

Merely because other commercial establishments are being run on Gandhi Path, Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, this Court would not be justified in directing the respondents to grant licence of bar to the petitioner's hotel, for which conversion of land into commercial use is necessary. This Court does not deem it appropriate to direct that even though the land of the petitioner may not be converted for commercial use, yet the respondents should grant him licence for running bar. Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents to act contrary to law because once they have indicated this to be a reason, it has to be decided on merits. The reason, which the respondents have disclosed that petitioner's hotel has been constructed on the land which has not been converted for commercial use and, therefore, licence of bar cannot be granted, cannot be said to be wholly unjustified. However,

¶27

¶28

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1380/2015

¶29

it is observed that as and when land of the petitioner is converted for commercial use, he would be entitled to again apply for grant of bar licence and if he does so, rejection of his application in the present case would not be an impediment for the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for issuance of bar licence.

¶30

In the result, the writ petition succeeds on alternative prayer and the respondents are directed to refund aforesaid amount of licence fee deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date certified copy of this order is produced before them, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for the period of delay.

¶31

Stay application stands disposed of.

¶32

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.

¶33

Manoj, S.NO.151.

¶34

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” MANOJ NARWANI Personal Assistant.

Rohit Tetarwal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Tetarwal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishni and Anr. Vs State Urban Developmentors

Gopal Lal Meena Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Suresh @Susya Vs State Home Departmentors

Smt Mani Devi and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shankar Lal Meena Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

General Public of Village Vs State of Raj and Ors.