Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 195 of 2019 Petitioner :- Baprekesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Murtuza Ali,Amit Kumar Singh,Jitendra Kumar Srivastava,Murtuza Ali,Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Sharma,Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Neeraj Sharma
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed against the order dated 9.2.2019 issued by the Collector/Licensing Authority, Ghazipur, seeking to auction the foreign and country liquor shop at Jakhaniya, Ghazipur.
3. Undisputedly, the petitioner was an existing licensee for the Excise Year 2018-19. Under Clause 2.1.10 (B) of the excise policy 2019-20, the petitioner could make an application for renewal. The licensing authority was obligated to pass an order thereon within a period of three days, requiring the petitioner to deposit the renewal fee within a further period of three days. According to the petitioner, that application was filed on 23.1.2019. Consequently, the order to deposit the renewal license fee should have been issued by 26/27.1.2019. The petitioner would have time till 30.1.2019 to deposit 50% of the renewal license fee and the balance 50% by 28.2.2019. Further, the balance security amount, if any, could be deposited by 31.3.2019.
4. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached the licensing authority on 28.1.2019 and prayed for extension of time. A written application supported by an affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 28.1.2019. On the strength of that application, the petitioner claims, he had three days time to make the deposit which he did on 31.1.2019.
5. Therefore, the issuance of fresh advertisement to auction the license of the petitioner is wholly contrary to law.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has actually made an application for refund, on 19.1.2019. Despite receipt of communication dated 20.1.2019 specifying the deposit of Rs. 30,000/- towards renewal fee and Rs. 8,17,500/- towards 50% of the basic license fee, the petitioner did not deposit that amount within time stipulated. In fact, the petitioner claims to have deposited that amount, belatedly, without any extension of time granted by the licensing authority. The State also disputes the correctness of the claim of the petitioner with respect to deposit. It relies on the first information report lodged doubting the genuineness of the challan showing deposit made by the petitioner.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find that the facts in the present case are highly disputed, both as to the date of filing of the application as also service of communication dated 20.1.2019. In any case, there is nothing to doubt the existence of the communication dated 20.1.2019. It thus appears, the petitioner's application for renewal would had been filed prior to that date. Computed therefrom, the condition of payment of 50% of basic license fee should have been completed within six days i.e. by 27.1.2019.
8. According to the petitioner's own case, the deposits were made thereafter. In absence of any written order being shown to exist to grant extension of time to the petitioner, it is difficult to believe the case set up by the petitioner as to extension of time.
9. In absence of extension of time shown to exist, no ground to interference can be made in this case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to move a proper application for refund of deposit (if any) made by him. That application may be dealt with on its own merits, within a period of three months from the date of its filing.
Order Date :- 20.9.2021 Prakhar