CWP/1535/2018 on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 1535 of 2018 Decided on: 31.12.2018 Rajinder Singh …Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bipin C. Negi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 and 9. None for respondent No. 6. Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 and 8. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Respondent No. 10 already ex­parte. Surya Kant, Chief Justice. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of Liquor Licenses L­2, L­14 and L­14/A granted to respondents No. 4 to 10 for the Excise Year 2018­19. He also seeks a writ of mandamus to conduct fresh allotment of liquor vends in District Sirmaur for the aforesaid year and further to refund the Retail Excise Duty deposited by him alongwith interest. The aforesaid amount was deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the Draw of Lots held on 14th March, 2018.

2. As regard to the refund of the Retail Excise Duty deposited by the petitioner, the official respondents have taken a plea in Preliminary Submission No. 5 that the petitioner has not approached them so far for the refund of the said amount and the same shall be immediately made but without any interest thereon. Let the petitioner, thus, approach the official respondents within one week and upon doing so, the amount of Retail Excise Duty deposited by him shall be refunded within two weeks.

3. So far as the licenses granted to respondents No. 4 to 10 are concerned, the petitioner alleges that Rule 15 of the Himachal Pradesh Liquor License Rules, 1986, which categorically provides that licenses cannot be held in conjunction, has been violated.

4. In our considered view, the duration of Excise Year 2018­19 is substantially over, as it would expire on 31st March, 2019. At this juncture, it would serve no purpose whatsoever to set aside the licenses granted to the above­ named respondents on a hyper­technical ground.

5. There is, however, a serious allegation made by the petitioner against respondent No. 10, who has chosen not to contest this writ petition despite being served. It is alleged that she is defaulter in the Excise Year 2017­18, yet fresh license for the subsequent Excise Year has been granted.

6. The official respondents have acknowledged this fact though according to them, respondent No. 10 has

assured that the due amount of the previous year shall be deposited.

7. Since the learned Senior Additional Advocate General does not have any latest instructions in this regard, it is directed that if respondent No. 10 has not cleared the dues, the Authorities shall take immediate action in accordance with law for recovery of the dues. The needful shall be done by 31st January, 2019.

8. With these directions, re: taking action for recovery against respondent No. 10 and refund of the Retail Excise Duty deposited by the petitioner, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Surya Kant) Chief Justice

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 31, 2018 ( rajni )