Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 497 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjit Saxena,Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Licensing Authority/Collector, Allahabad to allow the petitioner to run FL-6 licence under the U.P. Excise, at Taj Mahal Hotel and Bar, 139-Jawahar Square, Chowk, Allahabad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the State Government, vide its decision dated 10.06.2015 settled the inter se dispute between the petitioner and his other family members with respect to the right to run the aforesaid licence. The dispute having been settled in favour of the petitioner, he became entitled to renewal of the same. At that stage, the Licensing Authority, vide order dated 28.08.2016, demanded arrears of licence fee for the period 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 amounting to Rs. 19,14,000/- as a condition to renew that licence. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Tax No. 8 of 2017 which was dismissed vide order dated 11.04.2017. Against that order, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition wherein the Supreme Court granted stay of the aforesaid order of the High Court.
4. In such facts, it has been submitted that the dispute as to arrears is pending before the Supreme Court. In any case, since that demand has been stayed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled to renewal of the excise licence for the current period upon payment of current fees. The respondents cannot press recovery of any dues for the past period, which is pending consideration by the Supreme Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted, since the order of the High Court has itself been stayed, all rights being claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition would be governed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the excise authorities cannot, in the meanwhile, pass any order as may conflict with the stay order granted by the Supreme Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find that, in the earlier writ petition being Writ Tax No. 8 of 2017, the petitioner had made a dual prayer to quash the recoveries for the period 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, amounting to Rs. 19,14,000/- and also for renewal of the licence, for future period.
7. The said prayer had been dealt with by the High Court on the following terms:
"In view of above, the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate by the order dated 28.08.2016 has demanded the licence fee for the year 2014- 15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 total amount to Rs.19,14,000/- as a condition for the renewal of the licence.
Thus, aggrieved by the aforesaid demand and non-renewal of the licence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the quashing of the above order passed by the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate and for commanding him to renew the licence for the year 2016-17 and not to insist for the demand of the licence fee for the past during which the licence could not be operated on account of the various orders passed by the authorities in connection with the said dispute specially that of the closure of the shop to maintain peace and tranquility."
8. Clearly, the High Court had rejected the prayer made by the petitioner both, to quash the recoveries for the past period and to not enforce the condition/stipulation pressed by the excise authorities, to renew the licence only against payment of past dues.
9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid order wherein the below quoted order is shown to have been passed, by the Supreme Court:
"Head the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material.
Delay condoned.
Exemption from filing O.T. is granted. Issue notice.
In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of the order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 11th April, 2017 passed in Writ Tax No. 8 of 2017."
10. Clearly, the operation and effect of the order passed by this Court in Writ Tax No. 8 of 2017 has been stayed by the Supreme Court. Thus, it would be wholly premature on part of the petitioner to claim a right to renewal without payment of the past dues. Insofar as this petition is concerned, it becomes a second petition for the same relief. It cannot be entertained.
11. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 AHA