Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 66 (MP)

Rajesh @ Sourabh Nayak v. State of M. P.

2015-01-16

RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, RAJENDRA MENON

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed in Public Interest by the petitioner seeking shifting of liquor shop granted to respondent No.8 by way of license to run a foreign liquor shop at Station Road, Katni by the Excise Department. In the petition in para 3.2 it is said that petitioner is aggrieved by the establishment of foreign liquor shop by respondent No.8 and it is said that the foreign liquor shop is situated near three Government Schools, namely Govt. Gulab Chandra Primary School, Govt. Madhyamik School and Govt. Ravindra Rao Higher Secondary School, Station Road, Katni. It is said that petitioner has measured the distance between the shop and schools and it is around 40 meters. According to the petitioner there is statutory provision for establishment of a liquor shop within a radius of 50 meters of school and therefore, pointing out this illegality, this writ petition has been filed. 2. On notice being issued respondents have filed detailed reply and pointed out that on identical consideration and facts earlier also a Public Interest Litigation was filed by one Moti Jasuja vide Annexure R/1 being W.P.No.11371/2011 and there also respondent No.8 was impleaded as respondent No.4 and challenge was made in the said writ petition to the same shop on the ground that school is within a radius of 50 meters to Gulab Chandra Primary School. The Division Bench took cognizance of the matter and it is seen that the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 7.3.2012 Annexure R/1 after imposing a cost of Rs.2000/-. It is pointed out by Shri Swapnil Ganguly by referring to inspection report and documents filed as Annexure R/2 and R/3 to say that now this writ petition is barred by the principles of constructive resjudicata. In para 3 and 4 of the reply, respondents have made the following assertions :- “3. That the entire petition filed by the petitioner is frivolous and in fact before filing the writ petition the petitioner has not done any homework. The petitioner in the first relief has tried to emphasis that one foreign liquor shop is running near Govt. School Gulab Chandra Primary School and Govt. Ravindra Rao Higher Secondary School in Station Road Katni and the distance of aforesaid foreign liquor show is around 40 meter hence as per the rules the aforesaid foreign liquor shop cannot be running. The petitioner in the first relief has tried to emphasis that one foreign liquor shop is running near Govt. School Gulab Chandra Primary School and Govt. Ravindra Rao Higher Secondary School in Station Road Katni and the distance of aforesaid foreign liquor show is around 40 meter hence as per the rules the aforesaid foreign liquor shop cannot be running. It is also stated that despite making the aforesaid complaint no action has been taken by the authorities. The aforesaid claim or contention raised by the petitioner is misconceived in view of the fact that claiming similar relief earlier one PIL Moti Jasuja v. State of M.P. and others has been filed which is registered as W.P. No.11371/2011 wherein this Hon’ble Court on 7.3.2012 after considering all factual aspects have dismissed the PIL with costs of Rs.2000/-. Copy of order dated 7.3.2012 in W.P. No.11371/2011 is annexed as Annexure R/1. 4. That from the aforesaid order, it is clear that same school namely Gulab Chandra Primary School/ Ravind Rao Higher Secondary School was also in subject matter in which after holding an enquiry constituted by the Collector, Katni and as per the report available the aforesaid PIL was dismissed. That as on the shop which was situated at that time is exist even as on date on same spot and the contractor of the aforesaid foreign liquor shop was Lalji Patel who has arrayed as respondent No.4 in PIL W.P.No.11371/11 and even as on date Lalji Patel is holding the aforesaid license. The contention that respondent No.8 Manchu Asati is the contractor of the aforesaid liquor shop is misconceived. To demonstrate this aspect copy of the license which has been issued in the year 2011-12 and in the year 2013-14 are cumulatively marked as Annexure R/1.” 3. Thereafter in para 5 the following assertions are again made :- “5. That from the aforesaid it is clear that the place of shop is the same which has been awarded in favour of Lalji Patel. In these circumstance it is clear that the first relief (11.1) deserves to be dismissed as the issue in question has already been look into by this Hon’ble Court in the earlier writ petition which has been filed and has been dismissed vide Annexure R/1 . In these circumstance it is clear that the first relief (11.1) deserves to be dismissed as the issue in question has already been look into by this Hon’ble Court in the earlier writ petition which has been filed and has been dismissed vide Annexure R/1 . So far as the relief in paragraph 11(ii) and (iii) is concerned wherein the petitioner has tried to allege that the District Excise Officer Katni and the Contractor therein are illegally selling the liquors in various places in Katni so appropriate action may be initiated against them. For in that a representation have been made but no heed has been given to him. The aforesaid representation is concerned that another W.P. has been filed by one Pankaj Khampariya in W.P. No.16000/14 in which this Hon’ble Court on 28.10.2014 has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Collector Katni to decide the representation filed by the petitioner. In the aforesaid writ petition the representation which was filed and is directed to be decide by Collector is annexure P-6 and in the present writ petition the same representation has been filed as Annexure P-2. In these circumstance the same representation filed by the petitioner which is also a part of W.P. No.16000/14 has look into by the Collector Katni and after due examination Collector Katni has passed an order dated 24.11.14. Copy of the aforesaid order passed by Collector Katni dated 24.11.2014 is annexed as Annexure R/3. In these circumstance it is clear that the relief No.11(ii) and (iii) are misconceived and misplaced. The petitioner has not point out any specific instance in support of this allegation. Merely raising a grievance befoire this Hon’ble Court without any substantial evidence before Hon’ble Court the aforesaid writ petition is deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner only says by filing a rejoinder that earlier when the litigation took place, the shop of the respondent was situated in Ishwar Kripa Complex and now the shop has been shifted. Even though a rejoinder has been filed and a vague assertion is made that shop has been shifted, but no specific averments are made to say that the shop was on a different place and now the shop is in a different place. Even though a rejoinder has been filed and a vague assertion is made that shop has been shifted, but no specific averments are made to say that the shop was on a different place and now the shop is in a different place. Necessary details in this regard are not pleaded by the petitioner in the petition or in the rejoinder. 5. From the return filed by the respondents, it is clear that the question with regard to existence of shop of respondent No.8 in the place in question has already been considered in a previous round of litigation and was rejected. That being so, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. Petition is therefore, dismissed.