Romesh Singh vs UT Of J&K And Others

Puneet Gupta, J

The petitioner citing the judgment dated 28.12.2021 passed in writ petition WP(C) No. 1224/2021 and alleging non-compliance of the same and further raising grievance on e-auction notice No. EC/Exc/ e-auction/2022-23/8365 dated 03.03.2020 issued by the respondents with respect to wine shop vend for Jammu North range Akhnoor TAC W.No. 10-B figuring at serial No. 18 of the annexure I to the notice has filed the present writ petition.

The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the court in the aforesaid writ petition passed the directions to the respondents to issue JKEL-2 license to the petitioner for operating the liquor vend for the period for which the same has been issued to the other bidders in terms of e-auction and in case the respondents are allowed to proceed ahead with the auction of the wine shop vend to the Akhnoor TAC 10-B the same shall be in violation of the order passed by this court in the writ petition.

The objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the petition deserves dismissal as no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been violated. The Excise Policy was valid up to 31.03.2022 and the licenses granted under the said Policy stand determined as per clause (XVIII) of the bid document. It is further submitted that the license could not be issued in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner was not having a proper character certificate as per the requirement of the Excise Policy and, lastly, in compliance to the judgment the liquor license was issued in favour of the petitioner.

The controversy in the present matter lies in a narrow compass. The only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been granted the license in terms of the judgment passed by this court and, therefore, the auction notice issued for the year 2022-23 qua the vend for which the petitioner had also applied earlier is not sustainable in law.

The learned Advocate General for the respondents has argued the matter as per the averments contained in the objections. Of course, it is also submitted that the court cannot extend the period of license in the light of the Policy for a particular period in which the petitioner was a successful bidder.

It is submitted during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted license only for few days and the same is required to be extended as per the judgment dated 28.12.2021 of this court.

The perusal of the judgment reveals that the respondents were required to issue JKEL-2 license to the petitioner for the period for which the same has been issued to the other bidders in terms of e-auction. Nothing is placed on record by the petitioner to show the period for which the licenses came to be issued to the other bidders in pursuance to the auction meant for the year 2021-22. The earlier writ petition of the petitioner pertains specifically to his participation in the auction for the year 2021-22 and the licenses are to remain in operation till 31.03.2022. The judgment does not provide that the petitioner can be granted the license beyond the period specified in the auction notice of 2021. The court cannot extend the period of license in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the auction notice of 2022-23 (supra) qua the vend shop of the petitioner which was also the subject matter of the e-auction for the period 2021-22.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court cannot interfere into the auction notice dated 03.03.2022 issued by respondent No.2 on the strength of the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 1224/2021. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue any other remedy which he may have. The respondents are, however, at liberty to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate action in the matter.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed being without any merit.