Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 75 (PAT)

K. D. Liquor & Fertilizer(P) v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-14

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, RAJESH BALIA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner in short and substance is that the petitioner company is engaged in running a factory for manufacture of country liquor. But its establishment has been sealed and seized by the Officers of the State Excise Department without any authority of law. It is urged that before effecting seizure of factory no show cause notice was issued nor there was any order passed by any competent authority. 3. Learned counsel contends that neither any show cause notice has been issued nor any order has been passed against the company informing it the reasons for its factory having been sealed and leaving it clueless as to reason for such a serious action against it by the Department. The respondents have acted in highly arbitrary and high-handed manner. 4. Learned Advocate General, on seeking information from the Excise Commissioner, candidly stated that with regard to the sealing and closure of factory, the contention of the petitioner is correct to the extent that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before sealing the same. Nor there exists any order to that effect on record. However, he contends that there are materials against the petitioner company on the basis of which action can be taken against it. 5. We are of the opinion that in these circumstances the continuous closure of the factory without authority of law cannot be allowed to be continued and the petitioner be permitted to open its factory forthwith. The sealing or seizure effected by the Officers of the Excise Department shall be lifted forthwith and the petitioner be allowed to operate the factory. 6. However, this is without prejudice to the authority of the Excise Department to take appropriate action in accordance with law by following the procedure in respect of any material which may be available against the petitioner and of course, the petitioner will be at liberty to take any remedial step if any order is passed against it. 7. Accordingly, subject to aforesaid, this application is allowed.