Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 164 (HP)

RUDRA AND COMPANY v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-06-26

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.: - This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Rudra and Company and its partner Jagdish Chander under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: (i) quash the order Annexure P-1 in so far as it directs the closure of the L-2 and L-14 liquor vends of the petitioners on a day after the elections i.e. 10th November, 1993 and . on the day preceding the counting day, the day of counting and the day of subsequent to the counting i.e. 26th, 27th and 28th November, 1993 or any other day on which counting takes place; (ii) direct the respondents to reduce the licence fee proportionately in case the vends are directed to be closed or remain closed on any of the days other than those specified in the H.P. Liquor Licence Rule 1986 i.e. 10th November 12th, 26th, 27th and 28th November or any other day of counting as per Annexure P-1. (iii) quash the order Annexure A-4 and allow the refund of licence fee of Rs.5,50,000/- to the petitioners; (iv) direct the production of all the relevant records; (v) allow any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the court in the facts and circumstances may deem fit and proper; (vi) allow the costs of the petition. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1-Company participated in the auction of the excise licences for the retail vends of country liquor and foreign liquor etc. in HP. for the financial year 1993-94. Being the highest bidders the petitioners were granted licences in Form L-2 and L-14 for the sale of Foreign Liquor and Country Liquor at Solan, Kandaghat, Dharampur, Jabli, Parwanoo and Kasauli units of District Solan on annual licence fee of Rs.3,95,000/-. In the matter of conditions dealing with licence, sale, hours and dry days, the licences are governed by the H.P. Liquor Licence Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to Licence Rules framed under Section 59 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short the Act) as applicable to the State of H.P. According to the petitioner as per terms and conditions of excise announcements (Annexure P-2) and Licence Rules, the retail vends of liquor were closed only on the polling day and two days preceding the polling day. The licence fee which the petitioners had to pay works out Rs.1,10,000/- per day. The licence fee which the petitioners had to pay works out Rs.1,10,000/- per day. The election of the H.P. State Legislative Assembly was held on 9.11.1993 and the counting was fixed for 27th November, 1993. The Financial Commissioner (Excise)-cum-Excise and Taxation Commissioner, H.P. (respondent No. 2 herein) by order dated 2.11.1993 (Annexure P-1) ordered that all liquor vends shall remain closed on the polling day; two days preceding the polling day; the day after the polling day; the day before the counting day, counting day(s) and the day immediately thereafter in connection with the election of the H.P. State Legislative Assembly. As a result of Annexure P-1 all the liquor vends of the petitioners will have to remain closed on 10.11.1993; 26th, 27th and 28th November, 1993 as well as besides, 7th, 8th, 9th and 27th November, 1993. According to the petitioners the number of days could be further extended in case counting fixed for 27th November, 1993 was not completed on that day. The petitioners stated that the order (Annexure P-1) has no nexus with the excise policy or condition of auction and the closure of the liquor vends could not be ordered to be closed for more than three days i.e. the polling day or two days preceding the polling days as per Rule 37(11)(e) of Excise Rules as the closure of the liquor vends for more than three days had resulted in considerable hardship and loss of income to the petitioners. The petitioners also stated that the order (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 was illegal, void and against the statutory Rules and Excise Act besides being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition, represented to the respondents to allow exemption of charging of licence fee and refund of the fee of Rs.5,50,000/- during the days viz. 10.11.1993, 26.11.1993, 27.11.1993, 28.11.1993 and 29.11.1993 i.e. after the election; the day before the election, the days of counting and the days after the counting when the licence premises remained closed. The respondents by order dated 16.7.1994 (Annexure P-4) rejected their request to refund the licence fee for the aforesaid days. 10.11.1993, 26.11.1993, 27.11.1993, 28.11.1993 and 29.11.1993 i.e. after the election; the day before the election, the days of counting and the days after the counting when the licence premises remained closed. The respondents by order dated 16.7.1994 (Annexure P-4) rejected their request to refund the licence fee for the aforesaid days. He petitioners also stated that respondent No. 2 has exercised the power on the dictate and mandate of the Election Commissioner of India (respondent No. 4 herein) without independently applying his mind to assess the need of imposing the restrictions of closing the liquor vends. As per the petitioners the respondent-State of HP. through Secretary Excise and Taxation to the Govt. of H.P. (respondent No. 1 herein), the Asstt. Excise and Taxation Commissioner (respondent No. 2 herein) and respondent No. 3-Financial Commissioner (Excise) all have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by law in not ordering the refund of the licence fee to the petitioner for 5 days at the rate of Rs.1,10,000/- per day when the liquor vends of the petitioners remained closed as per order (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3. On these premises the petitioners have prayed for the grant of above said reliefs. 3. When the writ petition came up for motion on 5.11.1993 a Division Bench directed respondents No. 1 to 3 to file a short affidavit and the case was ordered to be listed on 8.11.1999. Reply to the writ petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 and no interim stay was granted by the Bench on the application of the petitioners on November 8, 1993. Election Commission of India was ordered to be added as party respondent No. 4 in the writ petition by order dated 26.11.1993. The writ petition was heard for some time by the Bench on 29.3.1994 when on the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners the matter was adjourned for four weeks to enable the petitioners to submit a representation within four weeks to the State Government to consider the question of waiving off the licence fee payable during the days when the liquor could not be sold on account of election held in November, 1993. The representation of the petitioners was rejected by the competent authority of the State Government. The representation of the petitioners was rejected by the competent authority of the State Government. The request of the petitioners to amend the writ petition was allowed by the Court and the respondents were granted six weeks time to file reply to the amended writ petition by order dated 7.11.1994. On the same day the writ petition was admitted for hearing. 4. Reply on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 was filed on the affidavit of Shri V.K. Bhatnagar who at the relevant time was posted as Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The respondents have stated that petitioner No. 1-Company was granted licence in Form L-2 and L-14 for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Country Liquor, at Solan, Kandagat, Dharampur, Jabli, Parwanoo and Kasauli Unit under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as in force in the State of H.P. and Excise Rules framed there under from time to time. Licence Rules, - 1986 stipulated for various terms and conditions for the grant and regulating the various Excise Licences. Rule 37(11)(e) of Licence Rules, provides the closure of the vends on the following days : 1. Independence Day (15th August). 2. Mahatma Gandhis Birthday (2nd Oct.) 3. Republic Day (26th January). 4. Martyrdom Day (30th January). 5. A polling day and 2 days preceding the polling. 6. A polling day within 5 kms. belt in the State neighbouring H.P. 7. Any other day specially appointed by order, by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. 5. Item No. 7 in the aforesaid Licence Rules was added by Notification No. 7-38/90-EXN dated 18.5.1991. The observance of the closure of the liquor vends on the above said days was also incorporated in the excise/policy for the year 1993-94. As per respondents, the election of the H.P. State Legislative Assembly was held on November 9, 1993 and the counting was fixed for 27th of the same month and accordingly, the respondents in compliance to Rule 37(11)(e) of the Licence Rules ordered the closure of the liquor vends on the days specified in the terms and conditions of the auction. As per respondents, the election of the H.P. State Legislative Assembly was held on November 9, 1993 and the counting was fixed for 27th of the same month and accordingly, the respondents in compliance to Rule 37(11)(e) of the Licence Rules ordered the closure of the liquor vends on the days specified in the terms and conditions of the auction. The respondents also stated that the Election Commission of India vide letter No. 576/14/93-P.S.I./965 dated 12th October, 1993 (Annexure R-1) directed the State Government under powers conferred in it by Article 324 of the Constitution of India that the "dry days" i.e. (i) the period of two days before the polling day; (ii) polling day; (iii) the day after the polling; (iv) the day before counting day; (v) counting day and (vi) the day immediately thereafter shall be declared and notified accordingly and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner was also in consonance with the above said directions of the Election Commission which were uniformally issued to all the State Governments not to permit sale or storage of liquor to prevent its use in polling violent atmosphere. The directions of the Election Commission has nexus, with the operation of proper atmosphere conducive to free and fair election. The respondents also stated that the petitioners before bidding in the auction for the liquor vends were fully apprised of the conditions and the licences in Form L-2 and L-14 were grated to them subject to the condition of the Act1 and the Excise Rules and the petitioners were fully aware of the provisions of the Act1, Licence Rules and the Excise Policy of the State Government at the time of offering their bids and subsequent acceptance of the licences and now they cannot be permitted to allege that the order of Financial Commissioner dated 2nd November, 1993 (Annexure P-1) was arbitrary and ultra vires of the Constitution. The respondents also stated that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner had independently taken decision in exercise of the powers under Licence Rule 37(11)(e) framed under Section 59 of the Act to order that all liquor vends shall remain closed on the poling day; two days receding the polling day; the day after the polling day; the day before the counting day(s) and the day immediately thereafter pursuant to item No. 7 of Licence Rules. The directions of the Election Commissioner dated 12th October, 1993 (Annexure R-1) on the subject of prohibition of liquor during the general election was not the sole criteria to order the closure of the liquor shops during the days stipulated in (Annexure P-1). 6. The petitioners in their rejoinder submitted that clause 7 of Rule 37(11)(e) of the Licence Rule does not give power to close liquor vends at the whims and fancy of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner when the Excise Rules specifically provides that whole sale and retail liquor vends shall remain closed on the day of polling and two days preceding the poling day and the notification ordering the closure of vends on the day of polling, after the polling the day preceding counting, the days of counting and the days immediately after counting was wholly arbitrary and whimsical as the power under item no. 7 could be exercised in rare cases and that too for a specified day and not more than a day. The petitioners also sated that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner had exercised the power on the dictate and mandate of the Election Commission without independently applying his mind to assess the need for imposing such restrictions and neither excise policy nor the condition of auction, nor the Rules allow the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to subjucate and abdicate his power and function at the whims of the Election Commissioner. The petitioners further stated that the election in the HP. had been absolutely peaceful without any rigging and therefore, there was no justification for closure of the vends after the polling and also before the days of counting and after the counting, more so when the counting had to be done primarily at the headquarters, particularly in Solan District. The petitioners also stated that there was no law and order problem involved for declaring dry days and the petitioners are therefore, entitled to refund of the licence fee for the days when their, vends had been illegally closed. 7. Election Commission of India-respondent No. 4 also filed a reply on the affidavit of its Secretary. In its reply, respondent No. 4 stated that no challenge to any action, order or notification of the Election Commission of India has been made out by the petitioners against the respondent No. 4 therefore the writ petition against it deserves to be dismissed. Election Commission of India-respondent No. 4 also filed a reply on the affidavit of its Secretary. In its reply, respondent No. 4 stated that no challenge to any action, order or notification of the Election Commission of India has been made out by the petitioners against the respondent No. 4 therefore the writ petition against it deserves to be dismissed. However, it was submitted that under Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India, the Commission is vested with he power of superintendence, direction and control of all elections to the Parliament and State Legislature and also to the offices of President and Vice President of India. In the discharge of its sacred Constitutional responsibility of conducting and ensuring free and fair elections, the Commission takes diverse measures to create and preserve atmosphere conducive to the holding of peaceful, fair and free elections reflective of the true choice of the electorate and to achieve this goal, the commission issued several directions and instructions to the Central and State Government and through them, to the authorities under them which have the executive responsibility to implement and carry out the said directions and instructions. On such measure which the Commission has been adopting for the last several decades the ban was placed on the sale of liquor and intoxicants, not only on he day of poll and such ban continues till the completion of the election and even for a day after the completion of the election. Such a ban is considered imperative for the proper maintenance of public order and also to prevent the possibility of the use of intoxicants as an inducement to colour the judgment of the voters at the time of poll or to disturb public order and reduce the poll to a crucial exercise. It is the stand of respondent No. 4-Election Commission of India that the announcement of the elections to the State Legislative Assemblies of six States including the State of H.P. to be held in November, 1993. No rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. was filed by the petitioner. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The main thrust to challenge the order Annexure P-1 passed by the Excise and Taxation. No rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. was filed by the petitioner. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The main thrust to challenge the order Annexure P-1 passed by the Excise and Taxation. Commissioner, H.P. as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the said order was passed on the dictate and mandate of the Election Commission of India which has no authority to regulate the closure of the liquor vends during the H.P. State Legislative Assembly Election held in November, 1993. Mr. K.D. sood, also contended that there was no nexus sought to be achieved ordering the closure of the liquor vends on the day of polling and the day after polling as on those days the voters were not influenced in any manner as law and order has to be maintained by the State Government and not by the Election Commission. He next contended that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner has to exercise the power independently influenced by the directions of the Election Commission of India as per the Excise Rules and the said power could only be exercised for a "day" and not for more "days" and, therefore, the licence fee paid by the petitioners for the period when the liquor vends remained closed for more than one day has to be proportionately reduced by respondents No. 1 to 3 as the petitioners had suffered, financial loss due to closure of the vends for more than one day. Mr. Sood in support of his submission placed reliance in Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association and others etc. v. The State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1992 Bombay 3, M/s. Vinod Kumar and Co. v. The State of Punjab, Vol. 102 1992(2) Punjab and Haryana 213; decision of the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in A.B. Acharya and another v. The Commissioner Excise Directorate, West Bengal and others, decided on 3rd September, 1993 and decision of the Allahabd High Court in CWP no. 4782 M.B. 1993 Mohd. Arif Khan and others v. Chief Election Commission of India, decided on 5.11.1993. 8. Per contra, the learned Advocate General contended that the order dated 2nd November, 1993 (Annexure P-1) was passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Rule 37(11)(e) of the Excise Rules which are framed under Section 59 of the Act. Arif Khan and others v. Chief Election Commission of India, decided on 5.11.1993. 8. Per contra, the learned Advocate General contended that the order dated 2nd November, 1993 (Annexure P-1) was passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Rule 37(11)(e) of the Excise Rules which are framed under Section 59 of the Act. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner has the power to notify any other day ordering the closure of the whole sale and retail sale of the liquor and the petitioners were apprised at the time of auction about the numbers of days on which the liquor vends would, remain closed in terms and conditions of the excise Policy for the year 1993-94. He also contended that the directions of the Election Commissioner contained in Annexure R-1 at the most could be considered supplementing the order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner which was independently taken by him before the Election Commission of India issued the said directions on the subject of closure of the vends during the election of State Legislative Assemblies including the State of H.P. held in November, 1993. 9. I have given my careful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Now the relevant provisions of the Act may be noticed. 10. Section 5 of the Act empowers the State Government to regulate the maximum or minimum quantity of any intoxicant which may be sold by retail or wholesale. Section 8(a) vests the general superintendence and administration of all matters relating to exercise in the Financial Commissioner, subject to the control of the State Government. Section 27 of the Act empowers the State Government , to "lease" on such conditions and for such period as it may deem fit or retail, any country liquor or intoxicating drug within any specified local area. On such lease being granted the Collector, under sub-section (2), has to grant to the lessee a licence in the form of his lease. 11. Section 34(1) of the Act provides that every licence, permit or pass under the Act shall be granted (a) on payment of such fees, if any, (b) subject to such restrictions and on such conditions, (c) in such form and containing such particulars, and (d) for such period as the Financial Commissioner may direct. 11. Section 34(1) of the Act provides that every licence, permit or pass under the Act shall be granted (a) on payment of such fees, if any, (b) subject to such restrictions and on such conditions, (c) in such form and containing such particulars, and (d) for such period as the Financial Commissioner may direct. By Section 35(2), before any licence is granted for the retail sale of liquor for consumption on any premises the Collector has to ascertain local public opinion in regard to the licensing of such premises. Section 36 confers power on the authority granting any licence to cancel or suspend it if, inter alia any duty or fee payable thereon has not been duly paid. 12. Section 56 of the Act1 empowers the State Government to exempt any intoxicant from the provisions of the the Act. By Section 58 the State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying , out the provisions of the Act. Section 59 empowers the Financial Commissioner by Clause (a) to regulate the manufacture, supply, storage or sale of any intoxicant. 13. In this background, the relevant provisions of Section 59(f)(v) of the Act and Excise Rules are extracted herein. "59(f)(v) the fixing of the days and hours during which any licensed premises may or may not be kept open, and the closure of such premises on special occasions; "Rule 37(11)(e), however, licensed premises of all wholesale and retail vends of liquor shall remain closed on the following days : 1. Independence Day (15th August. 2. Mahatma Gandhis Birthday (2nd Oct.) 3. Republic Day (26th January). 4. Martyrdom Day (30th January). 5. A polling day and 2 days preceding the polling. 6. A polling day within 5 kms. belt in the State : neighbouring HP. 7. Any other day specially appointed by order, by the . Excise and Taxation Commissioner. 14. As per item No. 6 the wholesale or retail vends of liquor shall remain closed on polling day or two days preceding the polling days. Item No. 7 was added by Notification No. 7-38/90-EXN-8393-8423 dated 18.5.1991 (Annexure R-III) issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner which also form the part and parcel of the excise policy (Annexure P-2) for the financial year 1993-94. Item No. 7 was added by Notification No. 7-38/90-EXN-8393-8423 dated 18.5.1991 (Annexure R-III) issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner which also form the part and parcel of the excise policy (Annexure P-2) for the financial year 1993-94. The election of the H.P. State Legislative Assembly admittedly was held on November 9, 1993 and the counting was fixed on 27th of the same month and accordingly the Excise and Taxation Commissioner under Rule 37(11)(e) of the Excise ordered the closure of liquor vends on he polling day, two days preceding the polling days, the. day after the polling days, the day before counting day, counting day and the day immediately thereafter as per order dated 2nd November, 1993 (Annexure P-1). Notification Annexure P-1 was issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner before the direction of Election Commission issued under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners before bidding for at the time of announcement of auction of the liquor vends were fully apprised about the observance of dry days and sale hours as per condition No. 76 of the auction notice (Annexure P-2) for the financial year 1993-94 and they after accepting all the terms and conditions of the auction notice, gave highest bid for L-2 and L-14 licences which were granted to them. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner has exercised the powers of closure of the liquor vends strictly according to Rule 37(11)(e) of the Licence Rules independently than the direction or mandate issued by the Election Commission of India. Therefore, the action of the respondents to close the liquor vends during the above said days is valid and legal in exercise of the powers and jurisdiction vested in the Financial Commissioner and the contention of the petitioners that the respondents have exercised the powers on the direction and mandate of the Election Commission of India cannot be accepted. The powers to fix the days and hours under Section 59(f)(v) of the Act1 and Rule 37(11)(e) of the Licence Rules is so broad that the authority may fix any number of days or house as dry days or close hours. The powers to fix the days and hours under Section 59(f)(v) of the Act1 and Rule 37(11)(e) of the Licence Rules is so broad that the authority may fix any number of days or house as dry days or close hours. The power has been exercised by the Financial Commissioner under the Licence Rules in his subjective satisfaction to ensure free and fair election in the State of H.P. Similar orders were passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, H.P. under Rule 37(11)(e) of the Licence Rules during the general election to Lok Sabha and State Assembly in February and March, 1998. Rule 39 of the Licence Rules provides that no compensation shall be due for any closure made under Section 54 of the Excise Act, as applied to H.P. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners claim that the licence fee for the days when their liquor vends remained closed during the HP. State Assembly Election in the month of November, 1993 is wholly un-tenable. The ratio of the decision in Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association and others etc. v. The State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1992 Bombay 3 (supra) relied upon by the petitioners, in my view, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the powers of Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution of India imposing ban on sale of liquor in view of election of Lok Sabha scheduled to be held on 26th May, 1991 to override any of the legislations or statutory rules having force of legislation in any of the states was held to be without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge observed that the ban on sale of liquor, if any, was to be imposed by the State Legislature or by the statutory authority empowered to act under the legislation and the Election Commission could at the most recommend particular line of action to be adopted by the authorities on the subjects on which it does not possess authority or jurisdiction. In M/s. Vinod Kumar and Co. v. The State of Punjab, Vol. In M/s. Vinod Kumar and Co. v. The State of Punjab, Vol. 102 1992(2) Punjab Law Reporter cited by the petitioner; the learned Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealing with interpretation of the provisions added to Rule 37(35) of the Liquor License Rules, 1957 directed the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to decide the question of granting of remission in the licence fee in respect of both the licences issued in Form L-2 and L-14 to the petitioners in that case for the period their licensed vends were ordered to be closed under the two orders of the District Magistrate. The orders were passed by the District Magistrate in the said case under Section 54 of the the Act". The ratio of the said decision does not help the case of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioners have also relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 4782 (MB) of 1993 decided on 5.11.1993 whereby and where under the High Court held that while the Election Commission of India had the powers to take appropriate action and issue directions under Article 324 of the Constitution of India with regard to the conduct of elections, it could not control the exercise of powers or discretion of a statutory authority like the District Magistrate and that the District Magistrate had to independently apply his mind and exercise his discretion for issuance of orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or for making an order for impounding of arms during the period of election and that the District Magistrate ought to treat the directive of the Election Commission as suggestive or recommendation, entitled to due weight age. The said judgment of the Allahabad High Court was assailed by the Chief Election Commissioner of India in Civil Appeal No. 4248 of 1994 with Civil Appeal No. 7007 of 1993 before the Honble Supreme Court of India. Their Lordships by order dated October 14*, 1999, a photo copy whereof has been shown to this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioners observed as under: "Mr. Their Lordships by order dated October 14*, 1999, a photo copy whereof has been shown to this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioners observed as under: "Mr. Khanwilkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India submits that after the judgment of the High Court, the Election Commission has issued an order bearing No. 464/96-LO/PLN-1, dated 13th March, 1996 dealing with the question which was the subject-matter of issue before the High Court. In view of the subsequent development that have taken place, we do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the judgment of the High Court as that now has only an academic interest. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. The stay shall stand vacated." So far Civil Appeal No. 7007 of 1993 is concerned, the Apex Court observed as under: "The directions issued by the Election Commission to the State, which were subject matter of challenge before the High Court and which were struck down vide judgment and order dated 3.9.1993, had a limited life span confined only to the elections held in the year 1993. That Notification, having lost its vitality, does not require any further consideration, more so, on 21st September, 1996, the Election Commission of India has issued revised instructiphs. This Civil Appeal, .therefore, does not merit an consideration. It is dismissed No costs." 15. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the judgment of the Allahabad High Court on the subject-matter in issue in the case on hand will have no bearing. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in case of A.B. Acharya and another v. The Commissioner Excise Directorate, West Bengal and others, decided on 3rd September, 1993 whereby the learned Single Judge held that the Election Commission of India did not have the power to prohibit the sale of liquor even during the election period and prior to or beyond the date of polling. The Secretary Election Commission of India (respondent No. 4) herein in his affidavit has stated that the appeal against the said judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court is pending in the Honble Supreme Court. The result of the said appeal was not known to the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing of this writ petition. The result of the said appeal was not known to the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing of this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners cannot take any benefit of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court to contend that order dated 2nd November, 1993 (Annexure P-1) impugned in this writ petition is based upon the directions of the Election Commission of India. As noticed above the Excise and Taxation Commissioner has passed independent order under the Licence Rules prior to the issuance of the directions of the Election Commission on the subject matter in issue whereby the liquor shops were ordered to be closed under item Nos. 6 and 7 of the Rule 37(11)(e) of the Licence Rules. The Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 452/92 M/s. Swarghat Wine Traders and another v. State of H.P and others, dismissed the writ petition of the petitioners claimed for compensation during the period when the District Magistrate, Bilaspur ordered the closure of liquor retail shops including bar in Bilaspur District during anti-reservation agitation in the year 1990holding that in view of the provisions contained under Section 57 of "the Act" read with Rule 39 of H.P. Liquor Licence Rules, the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur under Section 54 of the Act was not justifiable as it was for the concerned District Magistrate to decide the question whether there was a tense law and other situation prevailing in he District and he had done it on the materials available to him. In that case the consequential order passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner dated 27.9.1990 directing closure of all liquor retail shops for a period of 13 days was also found valid and unassailable. On consideration of the entire factual situation and legal aspect of the matter order dated 2nd November, 1993 passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Annexure P-1) is held to be valid and unassailable in the present proceedings and the petitioners are not found entitled to any relief claimed by them in the present writ petition. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. In the result, for the above said reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Costs on parties. 17. Stay order, if any, shall stand vacated.