Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2592 (PNJ)

Mittal v. State Of Haryana

2006-07-07

SURYA KANT

body2006
Judgment SURYA KANT, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants whose suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent-authorities from recovering the licence fee from 5.9.1995 to 10.10.1995 in respect of L-14a and L-2 licence issued in favour of the appellant for the year 1995-96 and for grant of mandatory injunction to direct the respondent-authorities to remit the proportionate licence fee for the period aforesaid, has been dismissed by both the Courts. 2. Appellant No.1 is a partnership firm. Appellants No.2 to 12 are its partners. Appellant No.1 was granted liquor licence for the year 1995-96 in Form L-14a and L-2 for the vends of Kalayat (Rajaund Group), District kaithal. While L-14a vends were allotted for a sum of Rs.3,56,10,000/-, L2 vends were given to them for a licence fee of Rs.12,57,815/-. As per the terms and conditions contained in the auction notice which were final and binding upon the parties, there were three dry days, namely, 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October and the entire liquor was to be sold in the remaining 362 days. Alleging that due to unprecedented heavy rains in the state of Haryana, there were floods in District Kaithal, due to which their liquor vends remained closed from 5.9.1995 to 10.10.1995, appellants filed the present suit seeking the reliefs, referred to above. However, on an appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the courts below have concurrently concluded that there is no evidence to show that the liquor vends remained closed during the period in question; no such order was ever passed by the Excise Authority; the evidence on record does indicate that the shops remained open even during the said period. The Courts below have further held that no convincing evidence has been led by the appellants to show that there was a flood-like situation during the relevant period. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and have perused the impugned judgments. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any express order passed by any statutory authority from the Excise department directing the appellants to close the liquor vends during the period from 5.9.1995 to 10.10.1995. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and have perused the impugned judgments. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any express order passed by any statutory authority from the Excise department directing the appellants to close the liquor vends during the period from 5.9.1995 to 10.10.1995. Similarly, no evidence has been led to prove that there were floods in District Kaithal at the relevant time and the entire case hinges upon the oral and bald statement of PW1 Din Dayal. Both the Courts have held that the appellants have failed to lead convincing evidence that there were floods and due to accumulation of water in the area, the vends remained closed. The first Appellate Court has further referred to clause 15 of the conditions of auction (Ex. D1) which provides that in case liquor vend is closed because of Court order, local resistance or for any other reason, the licensee will have the option to shift the vend with the prior permission of the authorities within the command area. The appellants own witness (Din Dayal, PW1) has candidly admitted that in the flood like situation they were entitled to shift their vends but no such shifting was made by them. Be that as it may, the concurrent findings of fact returned by the courts below are based upon appreciation of evidence on record and the same can neither be termed as perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record thereby warranting no interference by this Court in this Regular second Appeal as what is being assailed is a pure finding of fact which does not give rise to any substantial question of law. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.