Arvind Ranawat vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner who has himself been allotted a liquor shop (IMFL) has made allegations against private respondent no. 5,i nter alia, against

wrongful allotment and running of liquor shop through a mobile van.

Considering that the two shops are located in two different districts divided by river Ganges, but in any case, the shops were in close proximity to

each other, the matter was given to the Excise Commissioner to decide it. The Excise Commissioner came to the conclusion that running of a mobile

shop is impermissible under the law and the private respondent no. 5 was prohibited to run a shop through a mobile van, but instead the District

Magistrate leased out a land and a premises in favour of private respondent no. 5 so that he can operate a liquor shop in that place. In the same order

of the Excise Commissioner, it has also come that the petitioner himself is running a shop in an area where the said shop cannot be run as it is in

“Kumbh Mela†area. His shop too (i.e. petitioner’s shop) is on the right bank of the river Ganges in “Muni-ki-Retiâ€, which is in District

Tehri Garhwal.

Considering that there was an apparent illegality and violation of law, in the manner both the petitioner and private respondent no. 5 were running

their shops, inter alia, in violation of the Excise Act, and as a statement was given before this Court by the learned State Counsel Sri S.R. Joshi, on

directions of this Court, that inspite of the order of the Excise Commissioner, respondent no. 5 was still continuing to run a liquor shop through a mobile

van, this Court passed the following order on 24.07.2020:-

“The petitioner before this Court is operating a liquor shop, which is at a place called “Muni-ki-Retiâ€, in District Tehri Garhwal. Admittedly

“Muni-ki-Reti†where the shop of the petitioner is situated is on the right banks of river Ganges. He has objections to the shop being opened by

respondent no.5, which is on the left side of river Ganges and lies in District Pauri Garhwal, on grounds that the minimum distance between the two

shops is less than the prescribed limits, and secondly this shop has been allotted in favour of respondent no.5 without there being a consent of the two

District Magistrates i.e. the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal and the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal.

This Court vide its order dated 11.06.2020 had directed the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand to hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders

therein. Particularly, Excise Authority was asked to give a finding whether liquor shop can be run through a mobile van or not, as the specific

allegations, inter alia, of the petitioner was that private respondent is running a liquor shop through mobile van. After hearing both the parties, the

Excise Commissioner has passed an order on 24.06.2020 coming to the conclusion that there is no provision under the Excise Act to grant a licence to

run a liquor shop of country made liquor or Indian Made Foreign Liquor through a mobile van, and therefore, running of the liquor shop by the private

respondent was per se illegal. But at the same time, the Excise Commissioner has also directed that the private respondent can operate the shop on

the place which is leased out to him by the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal.

With the aforesaid determination which was before this Court, another objection which was raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was

that once a shop is allotted under the Excise Laws, the allottee has to arrange for a place where he can run the liquor shop. The shop was never

leased out by the State Government before, and an undue favour has been given to the private respondent, as a place has been leased out in his favour

by the District Magistrate.

The allegations of the private respondent that the petitioner himself has been leased out the land at “Muni-ki-Reti†by the District Magistrate,

Tehri Garhwal. Moreover, it is the clear finding in the order of the Excise Commissioner dated 24.06.2020 that the petitioner himself is running a shop

in the “Kumbh Mela Kshetraâ€​, which cannot be done under the law.

This finding prima facie appears to be correct. Therefore following factors are absolutely clear in the order of the Excise Commissioner:-

(A) Private respondent cannot be allowed to run a liquor shop through mobile van.

(B) Private respondent cannot also be allowed to operate the shop on a land/premises leased out to him by the State.

(C) Similarly the petitioner also cannot be allowed to operate a shop on a place leased out by the District Magistrate or by the State Government and

he also cannot be allowed to run a shop in the “Kumbh Mela Kshetraâ€​.

In view thereof, as an interim mandamus is issued to the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal to forthwith close down the shop of the private

respondent, after making the inventory of the stock presently on the shop and seal the premises. The private respondent shall also not be allowed to

operate the liquor shop through mobile van as the learned State Counsel Mr. S.R. Joshi, who was directed to get instructions in the matter has very

fairly submitted before this Court that as per his instructions the private respondent is still running a liquor shop through a mobile van, which is clearly

in violation of this Court’s order dated 09.07.2020.

There is also a finding in the order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the Excise Commissioner that the petitioner also is running a liquor shop in the

“Kumbh Mela Kshetraâ€​.

These factors which are admitted before this Court also put a question mark on the legality and propriety of the shop being run by the petitioner as

well. The same interim mandamus is also issued to the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal to forthwith close down the shop of petitioner, after making

the inventory of the stock presently on the shop and seal the premises.

Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to apprise the concerned District Magistrates about the order, so that these orders can be

complied with immediately.

List this matter on 27.07.2020.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied today itself on payment of usual charges.â€​

Today this Court has been informed that the shops of the petitioner as well as private respondent no. 5 have been sealed and an inventory has been

prepared of the existing stock in the shop and both the petitioner as well as the private respondent no. 5 are presently restrained from running the

shops.

A very fair suggestion has come from the side of the learned Standing Counsel that since this matter also has some revenue implications, let the

Excise Commissioner consider the matter in accordance with law.

In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed with a direction that the Excise Commissioner who shall consider the validity to run the shop (both the

petitioner as well as private respondent no. 5) at different locations where there is no apparent illegality under the law. It is also made clear that the

Excise Commissioner will not lease out any property either in favour of the petitioner or the private respondent no. 5. Let the petitioner and the private

respondent no. 5 make their own individual efforts for locating a property, give suggestions to the Excise Commissioner and if it is permissible under

the law that a liquor shop can run from these two places, the Excise Commissioner may allow to run the shops. Till a decision is taken by the Excise

Commissioner and a proper shop is allotted, both the petitioner and the private respondent, shall not be allowed to run their liquor shop. Their shops

shall remain sealed and shall only be allowed to run after a decision is taken by the Excise Commissioner, as directed by this Court.

Considering the nature of the case involved, the Excise Commissioner shall take an expeditious decision in the matter without any delay.

Let a copy of this order be issued to the petitioner as well as the private respondent today itself on payment of usual charges. Let a copy of this

order be also issued to the learned State Counsel free of cost for submission before the Excise Commissioner for onward compliance.