Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 236 (UTT)

Doon Valley Brewer’s Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-06-02

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs, among others:- “(i) Issue a order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notification bearing No. 288/XXIII/2016/04(01)/2016 dated 19.04.2016 issued by respondent no.1 (Annexure No. 1 of the writ petition) deleting clause 7 & 8 of the Notification bearing No. 118/XXIII/2016/04 (01) 2016 Dehradun dated 25.02.2016 (Annexure No. 02 of the Writ Petition). (ii) Issue a order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 not to enforce impugned Notification bearing No. 288/XXIII/2016/04(01)/2016 dated 19.04.2016 issued by respondent no.1 (Annexure No. 1 of the writ petition) deleting clause 7 & 8 of the Notification bearing No. 118/XXIII/2016/04 (01) 2016 Dehradun dated 25.02.2016.” 2. Petitioner is a Public Limited Company and is engaged in manufacturing and sale of ‘Beer’ through it’s vinery situated in village Aurangjebpur, Paragana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. The petitioner has the license ‘Form B1’ issued by the Excise Commissioner of Uttarakhand, under the U.P. Breweries Rules, 1961 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand). The license of the petitioner-company is still valid. The petitioner is complying with all the statutory requirements of U.P. Excise Act, 1910. 3. It was a sick unit and, therefore, incentives were provided to it. In excise financial year 2015-2016 also, the State Government provided some reliefs to the Beer/Wine industry of the State. Prior to issuance of impugned notification, the Government of Uttarakhand is helping the SSI units and it’s other related units, which have been under severe economic distress. During the financial year 2015-16, the petitioner opened and started running 8 outlets. The petitioner also deposited license fee of Rs. 1.5 lacs per outlet for the financial year 2016-17. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already used huge investments in order to run the outlets. 4. The State Government, vide impugned notification dated 19.04.2016, has amended the policy by deleting clause-7 of the Excise Policy Notification dated 25.02.2016 and has directed the closure of all the independent outlets of the petitioner-company in 8 districts. The effect of deletion of clauses 7 and 8 of the Excise Policy is that the petitioner-company is unable to continue the shops which were opened in pursuance to policy dated 25.02.2016. 5. The effect of deletion of clauses 7 and 8 of the Excise Policy is that the petitioner-company is unable to continue the shops which were opened in pursuance to policy dated 25.02.2016. 5. It is the submission of learned Standing Counsel that it is open to the petitioner to move a representation to the respondent no.1, who may deal with the grievance of the petitioner appropriately, in accordance with law. 6. Instead of asking the respondents to file the counter affidavit, this Court thinks it proper that the purpose of the writ petitioner will be served if he is directed to move a representation before the respondent no.1 for redressal of his grievance and respondent no. 1, in turn, is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law. 7. Upon making the representation by the petitioner to respondent no.1 within a week, respondent no.1 is directed to decide such representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, at the earliest possible, but not later than two weeks of production of the certified copy of this Order along with representation, as well as all the relevant documents, which the petitioner wants to file in support of his contention. 8. The writ petition thus stands disposed of at the admission stage itself.