Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2012 (RAJ)

Tara Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2009-09-15

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 02.09.2009 with the following prayers:- ''i. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the order dated 30.3.2009 Annexure-7, passed by the District Excise Officer, Bikaner may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may kindly be directed to grant licence for IMFL/Bear shop at Nokha for the remaining period of the Year 2009-2010 to the petitioner. iii. By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents department may kindly be directed to cancel the licence issued in favour of respondent No.4 Shri Chhailu Dan for IMFL/Bear shop at Nokha for the Year 2009-2010. iv. That any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. v. That cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. The reliefs aforesaid have been claimed with the averments in the petition that the respondents invited applications for grant of licence for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)/Beer for the year 2009-2010; that the petitioner applied for issuance of licence for liquor shop at Nokha and deposited the requisite earnest money; that the retail shop at Nokha came to be allotted to the petitioner after drawing of lottery in his favour; and that the petitioner deposited further amount towards licence fees etc. The petitioner has further averred that after grant of licence in his favour, the respondent No.4, who was one of the applicants for such licence, filed a complaint to the effect that an FIR bearing number 57/2004 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Nokha for offences punishable under Sections 341, 382/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the case was pending trial. The petitioner has pointed out that on such a complaint, a show cause notice was issued to him on 24.03.2009 for cancellation of the shop in question whereto he submitted a reply on 30.03.2009 stating that the FIR had been lodged against unknown persons and he was falsely entangled in the said case due to business rivalry. 3. The petitioner has pointed out that on such a complaint, a show cause notice was issued to him on 24.03.2009 for cancellation of the shop in question whereto he submitted a reply on 30.03.2009 stating that the FIR had been lodged against unknown persons and he was falsely entangled in the said case due to business rivalry. 3. The petitioner has further averred that by the order dated 30.03.2009 (Annex.7), the District Excise Officer proceeded to cancel the sanction as made in his favour holding that he did not disclose the complete facts and tried to obtain the licence on false declaration. The petitioner has further pointed out that being aggrieved of the order dated 30.03.2009, he preferred a writ petition to this Court being CWP No.2762/2009 that was disposed of on 02.04.2009 with this Court directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the previous communication. A copy of the order dated 02.04.2009 as passed by this Court in CWP No.2762/2009 has been placed on record as Annexure-8. 4. The averments have been taken thereafter in the petition that the petitioner submitted the copy of the Court's order dated 02.04.2009 to the respondent-Department. The petitioner has, however, not stated anything further in the factual narrations in relation to any order if passed by the Department pursuant to the said order dated 02.04.2009. However, the petitioner has averred that in pursuance of the said FIR, the police submitted the challan to the Magistrate concerned after investigation and the trial of the offences commenced; and by the order dated 29.07.2009, the learned Magistrate proceeded to acquit the petitioner. A copy of the order dated 29.07.2009 has been placed on record as Annexure-9. 5. The petitioner has averred that after the order of acquittal, he submitted a detailed representation stating that he was wrongly and intentionally implicated in the said criminal case to keep him away from the contract; and as he has been acquitted in the matter and the process of issuance of licence had otherwise been completed in his favour and he had also deposited annual licence fees, therefore, the matter may be considered for issuance of licence for the remaining period of the year 2009-2010 looking to the fact that the entire amount of the licence fees was available with the respondent- Department. 6. 6. The petitioner has stated the grievance that until the date, neither the representation submitted by him has been decided nor the directions issued by this Court have been complied with. 7. The petitioner has filed this writ petition stating himself being aggrieved of the order dated 30.03.2009 and of the inaction on the part of the respondents in failing to consider his representation after acquittal. 8. In the grounds taken in the petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 30.03.2009 as being illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable. It is submitted that the respondents have not considered the directions and guidelines issued by the State Government in appropriate manner and the petitioner, though being not involved in serious offence, was unnecessarily denied the licence. It is also submitted that the order dated 30.03.2009 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice on the very day of filing of the reply by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner had rightly represented the matter after his acquittal and the representation ought to have been considered. Various other grounds have been taken seeking to question the order dated 30.03.2009 on merits. It has also been averred that Clause 1 (d) of the guidelines was illegal, arbitrary and even ambiguous. 9. As already noticed, the petitioner has stated in the petition the facts about his having filed one writ petition earlier in this matter, being CWP No.2762/2009, and the order passed therein has been placed on record as Annexure-8. Nothing further has been stated in the petition regarding the proceedings after the order dated 02.04.2009 by this Court in the said writ petition; and the tenor of the present writ petition remains as if the respondents have not complied with the directions issued by this Court. In the notes appended to the present petition, the facts regarding previous litigation have been stated in the following terms:- "1. The Petitioner has filed writ petition previously in this matter before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2762/2009" 10. In the notes appended to the present petition, the facts regarding previous litigation have been stated in the following terms:- "1. The Petitioner has filed writ petition previously in this matter before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2762/2009" 10. Thus, upon a comprehensive reading of the present petition with the annexed documents, the picture regarding past litigation emerges in the manner that previously, the petitioner filed one writ petition (CWP No.2762/2009) that was decided on 02.04.2009 issuing directions to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and that the respondents have not complied with such directions. The submissions are incomplete and incorrect on material particulars. Such falsity on the part of the petitioner could be noticed because as a matter of chance, another writ petition preferred by the petitioner, being CWP No.3827/2009, as filed on 16.04.2009, came up for consideration before this very Bench of this Court and the same was considered in detail and was rejected, of course, in limine and without notice to the other side, with the detailed order dated 28.04.2009. 11. The record of the said writ petition, CWP No.3827/2009, has been requisitioned and it is noticed that in compliance of the order dated 02.04.2009 as passed by this Court in CWP No.2762/2009, the respondent District Excise Officer passed a detailed order on 09.04.2009 that was filed in the later writ petition (CWP No.3827/2009) as Annexure-12. In fact, it was the said order dated 09.04.2009 that was sought to be questioned in the said later writ petition along with the above referred order dated 30.03.2009. 12. It is apparent that by simply avoiding the material facts regarding the order dated 09.04.2009 and then the facts regarding filing of the said CWP No.3827/2009 and its decision on 28.04.2009, the petitioner has attempted to mislead this Court in this petition. 13. The order dated 28.04.2009 as passed in rejection of the said writ petition (CWP No.3827/2009) makes it clear that all the basic submissions concerning the interpretation of the guidelines and the correctness of the order of cancellation of licence (order dated 30.03.2009) were considered therein and were rejected. It appears that for the said writ petition having been dismissed without notice to the other side, the petitioner has attempted to mislead this Court by simply omitting the facts about filing of the said writ petition and its rejection. 14. It appears that for the said writ petition having been dismissed without notice to the other side, the petitioner has attempted to mislead this Court by simply omitting the facts about filing of the said writ petition and its rejection. 14. It is just a matter of chance that the present writ petition has come up for consideration before the same Bench who had dealt with the other previous writ petition; and that too in the recent past. This petition is required to be rejected while imposing costs on the petitioner for attempting to mislead this Court and to abuse the process of law. 15. Even on merits, there remains no case in favour of the petitioner. Mere acquittal in the criminal case on the later date does not take away the basic fact that there was a case registered against the petitioner that was pending and the petitioner did not disclose the same while making application for grant of licence. The respondent-Excise Department has not committed any error in passing the order dated 30.03.2009 cancelling the licence of the petitioner. The acquittal thereafter cannot in any case result in restoration of the licence nor wipes out the basic fault on the part of the petitioner that he did not disclose the factum of pendency of criminal case against him. While rejecting the said CWP No.3827/2009, this Court has, inter alia, observed,- ''Moreover, even on merits, such a contention, of want of authority with the District Excise Officer to cancel the license for furnishing of false information, remains fundamentally baseless. It inheres in the very process of the grant of privilege by the State to deal in the excisable articles that the applicant is an eligible person and has not been rendered ineligible to hold such license. When the guidelines and conditions forming an integral part of the application clearly stated the eligibility conditions and specifically pointed out the persons who were ineligible, every fact related thereto or likely to have any bearing on the eligibility was required to be disclosed. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not disclose the factum of pendency of criminal case against him. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not disclose the factum of pendency of criminal case against him. As to whether the case pending against him amounted to serious offence or not so as to attract the bar as contained in clause 1 (Gha) would have been a matter of consideration only when the petitioner had made true and faithful disclosure in his application about the factum of pendency of criminal case. The petitioner could not have concluded in his own favour that the accusation against him was not correct or that such an accusation did not amount to a serious offence. Such an aspect was definitely for the authority to consider, of course, in accordance with law but such an occasion would have arisen only if the petitioner would have made true and frank disclosure of the facts.'' 16. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is required to be rejected, of course, while imposing costs on the petitioner.Before closing, it appears apposite to put on record the comments that the petitioner could dare file this petition while concealing the facts regarding the previous writ petition (CWP No.3827/2009) essentially for the reason that the said earlier petition was dismissed in limine. These facts could be noticed per chance as the present petition came up before the same Bench within short time. Office is, however, to guard against such unscrupulous litigation; and for proper dealing with the matters, it appears rather necessary that the process of reporting on "matching details" ought to be taken up in the writ petitions also as is being employed in relation to other civil and criminal cases after making adequate arrangements in that regard. 17. This petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.21,000./- [twenty one thousand] to be deposited by the petitioner with the State Legal Services Authority within 30 days from today. 18. A copy of this order be also sent to the respondents Nos.2 and 3 with the directions that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of costs as required by this order with the State Legal Services Authority within 30 days, it shall be required of them to recover this amount from the petitioner and to remit the same to the State Legal Services Authority. 19. 19. A copy of this order be also sent to the Registrar General of this Court for appropriate action pursuant to the observations made hereinabove.Writ Petition Dismissed as above *******