Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 276 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Raj Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Murtuza Ali,Imtiyaj Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Chandra Tripathi
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against order passed by the Collector/Licencing Authority dated 8.9.2015, cancelling petitioner's licence for running of country liquor shop, which has been affirmed with dismissal of appeal and revision vide orders dated 3.12.2015 and 8.3.2016. The order records that upon a surprise inspection conducted upon the shop of the petitioner it was found that the licencee had left the shop. The inspection was conducted by a team consisting of ACM-I, Naib Tehsildar, Circle Officer and Excise Constables etc. The order further records that the licencee was at the shop but as soon as he found inspection team to be arriving, he left the shop. Though large number of persons were available on spot but none of them came forward to appear as witness, and in such circumstances, the inspection memo does not contain signatures of any independent witness. The seized liquor thereafter was inspected and it was found that on 5 bottles the liquor was adulterated and the holograms were also fabricated. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering his reply, hearing is stated to have been offered to the petitioner on 24.8.2015, 31.8.2015 and 7.9.2015, whereafter the Licencing Authority cancelled the licence on 8.9.2015. This order has been affirmed in appeal and revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is violative of principles of natural justice and the provision contained under section 100(4) Cr.P.C. has not been complied.
Learned Standing Counsel has supported the orders passed by the authorities and no interference is warranted.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record.
So far as the averments with regard to denial of opportunity is concerned, it is apparent on record that a show cause notice containing specific charges was issued to the petitioner. The order records that a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 17.8.2015. Contents of the reply have been noticed and in view of the request made to grant opportunity of hearing dates were fixed for hearing. The order records that opportunity of hearing has been afforded. Except for a vague averment that opportunity has been denied, there is nothing on record to substantiate the plea that petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing in the matter. The averment made in the writ petition with regard to denial of opportunity has been specifically denied in para 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit.
So far as the requirement of section 100(4) Cr.P.C. is concerned, the order records that inhabitants of the locality who were present on spot were requested to sign the seizure memo, but none came forward to put his signatures. The inspection was carried out on a date when the shop itself was open. The recital in the order that licencee left the shop upon seeing the inspection team is not otherwise shown to be factually incorrect. There is otherwise substantial compliance of section 100(4) Cr.P.C. in the facts of the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Triloki Prasad Sonkar vs. State of U.P. and others, delivered in Misc. Single No.8446 of 2013 on 25.11.2015. So far as this judgment is concerned, it appears that the dispute in that matter had arisen in peculiar facts of its own, inasmuch as inspection was carried out on Holi, while the shop was closed, after breaking the locks in the absence of licencee. Facts of the present case are entirely different, and therefore, ratio of law laid down in the judgment in Trilok Prasad Sonkar (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
For the reasons recorded above, no interference with the orders passed by the authorities are warranted. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Ashok Kr.