Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 72 (UTT)

Abhi Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-01-25

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 (contesting party), it transpires that in the whole province of Uttarakhand, there are four distilleries to manufacture the country made liquor. These are as under:- (i) Indian Glycol Limited, Kashipur (IGL) (ii) Doon Distillery, Dehradun (iii) Bajpur Cooperative Sugar Mill, Bajpur (iv) Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Laksar, District Haridwar (respondent no. 4 herein). IGL, Kashipur manufactures the most likable brand of country made liquor popularly known as “Picnic” and it is mostly supplied to the retailers of Haridwar district. 2. Under the liquor policy, the retailers were impelled by the Government to take supply of three distilleries as well, other than IGL Kashipur. Then one of the retailers of Haridwar district, namely, Mr. Manish Rathi filed a Writ Petition No. 42 (M/S) of 2015 against the State, which was adjudicated by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.1.2015 and it was allowed and the respondents were directed to provide the permission to the petitioner to lift the country made liquor of either of the four distilleries of the choice of the petitioner and to make available the same as per condition no. 4 of the license. 3. Now, in the current financial year 2016-17, another policy has been formulated by the Government and the Clause/Item No. 43 of such policy makes it incumbent upon the distilleries not to sell more than 5.42 lakh bulk litres of the country made liquor in a month. This was envisaged in the policy in order to provide equal opportunity to rest of the distilleries other than the IGL, Kashipur. 4. Feeling aggrieved, as many as 12 retailers of Haridwar district filed writ petitions, which were adjudicated by another coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.5.2016 directing the petitioners to make their representations before the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, who was asked to decide such representations by a speaking order after hearing the affected parties in accordance with law. 5. Such representations were made on 11.5.2016 and the Excise Commissioner was pleased to decide the representations of as many as 14 retailers by the order dated 13.7.2016. These representations were disposed of by rejecting their prayer. Thus, the condition of 5.42 lakh bulk litres, as aforestated, was kept sustained. 6. 5. Such representations were made on 11.5.2016 and the Excise Commissioner was pleased to decide the representations of as many as 14 retailers by the order dated 13.7.2016. These representations were disposed of by rejecting their prayer. Thus, the condition of 5.42 lakh bulk litres, as aforestated, was kept sustained. 6. Feeling aggrieved then by the order of the Excise Commissioner, six petitioners still moved forward to file the writ petitions bearing no. 2105 (M/S) of 2016 and 5 others, wherein another coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 21.9.2016, held that still the petitioners had remedy under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Excise Act to move to the State Government by way of filing the revision/application before the Secretary (Excise) of the State and if it is done, then the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. This order was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court, which held that since the appellant has not challenged the vires of Clause/Item no. 43 in the Excise Policy of the financial year 1016-17, therefore, the appeal was dismissed, but with the observation that the appellant had alternative and efficacious remedy to file revision before the Secretary (Excise). 7. Revision was accordingly preferred and the Secretary (Excise), vide his order dated 29.12.2016, has held that the Excise Commissioner shall ensure the opening of the godowns in all the 13 districts of the province for all the four distilleries. However, he did not find any reason to change the Clause 43 of the policy. 8. Now, one of the petitioners Mr. Abhi Kumar Yadav has come up before this Court seeking to quash the aforementioned order dated 29.12.2016. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has reminded this Court about the judgment of a coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No. 42 (M/S) of 2015 passed on 13.1.2015 wherein the respondents were directed to provide permission to the petitioner to lift the country made liquor of either of the four distilleries of the choice of the petitioner. I think this judgment of the coordinate Bench has now lost its relevance and has merged in the judgment of Division Bench rendered on 11.11.2016 in Special Appeal No. 328/2016, wherein the same Judge who had passed the earlier judgment on 13.1.2015 was also one of the Member. 10. I think this judgment of the coordinate Bench has now lost its relevance and has merged in the judgment of Division Bench rendered on 11.11.2016 in Special Appeal No. 328/2016, wherein the same Judge who had passed the earlier judgment on 13.1.2015 was also one of the Member. 10. Having considered the rival submissions as well as on pondering over the issue, I think that the prayer of the writ petitioner is quite unsubstantial and the Court rejects it with lock, stock and barrel. There is no force in this petition because if the petitioner’s prayer is allowed, then rest of the three distilleries in the province will come to an end and all out development of the State will be at stake. 11. Writ petition is dismissed at the threshold. 12. Urgency application (IA 413/2015) and stay application (CLMA 774/2017) stand disposed of accordingly.