Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 762 (ALL)

AMIT KUMAR VARSHNEY v. STATE OF U P

2008-04-03

VIKRAM NATH

body2008
VIKRAM NATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is being finally heard at the stage of admission. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 7. 3. 2008 passed by the State Government exercising revisional powers under section 11 (2) of the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). From a perusal of the order passed by the State Government it appears that upon oral instructions issued by the authorities at the district level, the running of the sub-shops of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were stopped. It also appears that such oral instructions were issued on a complaint/representation made by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the sub-shops which were being run by both the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had no legal authority and were not existing sub-shops for the main shop Iglas. Before the revisional authority respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had produced licence with regard to other sub-shops which were admitted to have been issued by the licensing authority by the excise inspector present at the time of the hearing of the revision. It may also be noted here that before the revisional authority the said excise inspector had stated that in the office of the District Excise Officer, Aligarh no papers were available with regard to such sub-shops being allotted in favour of the respondent nos. 5 and 6. ( 3 ) THE State Government by the impugned order had directed that the sub-shops of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 be allowed to continue and further that the District Magistrate, Aligarh shall examine as to whether the shop allotted to the petitioner effected the exclusive privileges of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and in case it does then the location of the said shop may be changed. ( 4 ) FROM a perusal of the order of the State Government it appears that the order was passed in a cryptic manner and without making any detailed enquiry with regard to the allegations and counter allegations being made by the parties. ( 4 ) FROM a perusal of the order of the State Government it appears that the order was passed in a cryptic manner and without making any detailed enquiry with regard to the allegations and counter allegations being made by the parties. Even the stand of the excise inspector present before the State government does not appear to be very sound. In fact it reflects some kind of contradictions. In the opinion of the Court the running of sub-shops against the licence whether valid or invalid cannot be stopped by an oral order and it is only after enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the parties concerned that such an order could be passed. Further, there are lots of confusion and controversy which also require adjudication based upon the evidence being led by the parties and the same cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. ( 5 ) IN view of the above this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7. 3. 2008 passed by the State Government is set aside. It would, however, be open to the District Magistrate, Aligarh to pass appropriate reasoned order after enquiry and after affording parties opportunity to lead evidence and hearing in case objections are filed by any of the parties. It is made clear that running of the sub-shops of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 will not be interfered with till any adverse orders are passed in accordance with law. It is expected that the District Magistrate will take an early decision in the matter and further it is expected that both the parties will co-operate in the proceedings. ( 6 ) WRIT petition allowed as above. Petition Allowed. .