Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 603 (UTT)

Urmila v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-21

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. All the petitioners are the retailers, who have been allotted shops for vending of country liquor, in District Haridwar. Since all these writ petitions relate to a common issue, therefore, all these petitions are being heard and decided by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, however, the facts of WPMS No. 2105 of 2016 are being taken into consideration for the disposal of these matters. 3. According to the petitioners, an unreasonable restriction has been imposed by the District Excise Officer whereby they are being compelled to lift country made liquor for a particular distillery alone. In other words, choice is not left open for the retailers/petitioners to purchase any other brand of other dealers. 4. In this case, the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions (leading case was WPMS No. 1201 of 2016) challenging the action of the Excise Authority, which was disposed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 11.05.2016 by passing following order:- “Heard learned counsels for the parties at length. Petitioners want the desired relief by remaining within the limits of the Excise Policy Notification, which was issued on 25.02.2016. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that present writ petitions are not maintainable in view of Section 11 of the Excise Act, which says that the Collector and every other excise officer (not being the Excise Commissioner) shall, in respect of all proceedings under this Act, be subject to the control of the Excise Commissioner and all orders passed by the Collector or such other officer under this Act, shall be appealable to Excise Commissioner in the manner prescribed by the rules made by the State Government in this behalf. It is the submission of learned counsels for the petitioners that respondent no. 3 is pressurizing the petitioners to lift quota of country liquor compulsorily of a particular brand of respondent no. 4. When learned counsels for the petitioners was asked to show the order impugned, they submitted that no such order has been passed by any of the authority of the Excise Department within the District. 3 is pressurizing the petitioners to lift quota of country liquor compulsorily of a particular brand of respondent no. 4. When learned counsels for the petitioners was asked to show the order impugned, they submitted that no such order has been passed by any of the authority of the Excise Department within the District. After arguing the writ petitions, learned counsels for the petitioners confined their prayer only to the extent that the petitioners be permitted to make their representations before the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand and the same be decided by the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand itself, by a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing the affected parties in accordance with law. In view of above, all the writ petitions are disposed of directing the petitioners to make their representations before the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand within three days from today and the same shall be decided by the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand positively by 25.05.2016, by a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing the affected parties in accordance with law. Let certified copies of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the parties today itself, on payment of usual charges.” 5. Rebutting the contention of the petitioner, Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4 has made a preliminary objection and submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act for filing revision or appeal before the authority concerned. 6. In pursuance of the above order of this Court, all the petitioners made their representations before the authority concerned, which was rejected vide order dated 13.07.2016 by the Excise Commissioner, Dehradun, which is presently under challenged before this Court. Although it has specifically stated in the order dated 11.05.2016 (referred above) that the Excise Commissioner is the appellate authority under Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 against the order of Collector or every other Excise Officer. Now, the learned Excise Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner as well as other distilleries, such as respondent No. 4 - Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Co. Now, the learned Excise Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner as well as other distilleries, such as respondent No. 4 - Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., which has raised objection on the demand of the petitioner, come to the conclusion that under the present Excise Policy, there are four distilleries in the State of Uttarakhand which manufactured country made liquor and all these four distilleries are also the bulk suppliers of country made liquor for which sale to licence was given to them. There is a restriction on these distilleries/CL2 licence holders, inasmuch as they can sell country made liquor but not more than 5.42 lakh litre per month. The conclusion drawn by the Excise Commissioner is that the demand of the petitioners is for a particular brand i.e. “Picnic”, which is manufactured by India Glycols Ltd. (in short ‘IGL’) and this demand is raised at a time when a particular CL-2 distillery has already exhausted its maximum quota of sale of 5.42 lakh litre per month of country made liquor, hence, this demand of the petitioner cannot be allowed. It has further been stated that there are other suppliers like respondent No. 4 – Rai Bahadur Narain Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and it is for this reason the petitioner has directed to lift the country liquor made by this distillery i.e. respondent No. 4. The contention of the petitioners remain that they are not being allowed to lift their country made liquor of their choice! 7. However, since the petitioners has a remedy to move an application/revision before the State Government in view of Section 11(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, let such a revision/application be filed before Secretary (Excise)/authority concerned and if it is done, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of such representation. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petitions stand disposed accordingly.