Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2813 (ALL)

SHIV SHANKER SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2006-11-21

R.P.MISRA, SHISHIR KUMAR

body2006
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri R.M. Saggi and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.6.2006 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3 on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount from the surety for the period of which shop of the petitioner No. 1 was closed for a period of 22 days i.e. 286 hours, and the shop of the petitioner No. 2 was closed for a period of 17 days that is 221 hours under the orders of the District Excise Officer, Mau. 3. The petitioners who are licensees and were granted licences of country liquor shop for the period 2005-06. The petitioners have run their country liquor shops from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006. A certificate to that effect has also been issued by District Excise Officer, Mau on 25.7.2006. Due to law and order situation, a curfew was imposed in the areas where the country liquor shops of the petitioners were situated and due to the curfew the shops of the petitioners were closed. The shop of the petitioner No. 1 was closed for 22 days (286 hours), and shop of the petitioner No. 2 was closed for a period of 17 days and shop of the petitioner No. 3 was closed for the period of 22 days. A chart regarding closure of the shops and loss of revenue due to the imposition of curfew issued by the District Excise Officer, Mau is dated 14.2.2006. The District Magistrate has written a letter to the Excise Commissioner U.P. at Allahabad recommending the case of the petitioners and for granting remission to the licensees during the period the shops of the areas were closed due to imposition of curfew. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition but the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioners in spite of the recommendation by the District Excise Officer that the petitioners are entitled for remission in respect of minimum surety amount that is basic licence fee. 4. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition but the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioners in spite of the recommendation by the District Excise Officer that the petitioners are entitled for remission in respect of minimum surety amount that is basic licence fee. 4. The submission has been made on behalf of the petitioners that in view of Section 59 of the U.P. Exicse Act, the petitioners are entitled to get the said benefit. The further reliance has been placed by the petitioners upon Rule 17 which keeps the permission that the licensed premises shall open for sale for all days from 10.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. except certain holidays. In view of the aforesaid provision of Section 59, Rules 179 and 190 the petitioners submit that there is no scope for the respondents for not granting the remission and the act in refusing the same is violative to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further an argument has been made on behalf of the petitioners that from the perusal of the order dated 28th June, 2006, it is clear that no reasons have been recorded. Only two lines order without assigning any reason has been passed by the respondent No. 2. This amounts to an order of non-application of mind without assigning any reason. 5. The reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court of the Constitution Bench in S.N. Mukherji v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1984, in which the Apex Court has clearly held that an administrative authority is bound to record the reasons while deciding the claim of a person. If the reasons have not been recorded that order will be treated as an order of non-application of mind. 6. Admittedly, the District Excise Officer, Mau, has recommended the case of the petitioners to the effect that due to the curfew the shops of the petitioners were closed by the order of the District Excise Officer and the District Excise Officer has also given the detail of days as well as hours of which the petitioners shops were closed but the respondent No. 2 without taking into consideration all these facts, has passed a non-speaking order without assigning any reason. In view of the aforesaid fact we are of the opinion that the order passed by the respondent No. 3/2 dated 28th June, 2006 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28th June, 2006 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 to decide as a fresh taking into consideration the recommendation of the District Excise Officer, Mau and will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. ————