AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subodh Abhyankar, J
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
Learned counsel for the respondents seek and are granted one week's time to file reply.
The grievance of the petitioner is that after passing of the order by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.5.2022, in W.P. No.12604/2022 the respondent has again passed the same order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Shri Vainay Saraf, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the aforesaid order dated 26.5.2022, wherein the petitioner is not only granted seven days time to file reply but the authorities were also directed to hear both the parties and take final decision regarding the re-location of the petitioner's shop. Counsel has also submitted that in the impugned order, the specific objection raised by the petitioner that the provisions of the relocation of the shop as per clause 4.5(5) of Notification No. 77 dated 25.2.2020 would not be applicable was taken but the same has also not been dealt with. Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the Notification No.77 which provides that relocation of a shop can be done by the Committee, but the same relates to a situation which has arisen after the liquor shop has already been relocated, and not prior to that.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the petition is not maintainable as an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner in terms of Appeals and Revisions Rules framed under Section 62(2)(c) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915. In support of his contention Counsel has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Hariom Land Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as 2012 SCC OnLine MP 5618.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State has also sought time to place on record the decision taken by the Committee to relocate the shop of the petitioner as the same is not available on record, and it is also submitted that all the objections of the petitioner have already been taken care of by the Committee thus, the personal hearing was not necessary.
Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
On due consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents on record, this court finds that the petitioner has made out of a case for interference. Firstly, as this Court in W.P. No. 12064/2022 has specifically directed the authority to give opportunity of hearing to both the parties after taking their reply and thus, it was not open for the discretion of the authority/Collector to presume that the opportunity of hearing means is different than the personal opportunity of hearing and secondly, the order does not reflect the petitioner's main objection regarding non-applicability of clause 4.5(5) of the Notification No.77, which has not been dealt with. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the respondent in the case of Hariom Land Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable at this stage.
In view of the same, the impugned order 29.9.2022 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 13.10.2022.
Certified copy, as per rules.