STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. JAGJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question involved in all the above noted three appeals is as to whether the contractors running the liquor shops under licence, issued by the State, in Uttar Pradesh are entitled to remission of licence fee for the period during which the liquor shops were ordered to be closed under Section 59 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (for short 'the Act'). The licensee in all the three cases, being the highest bidders for the group of shops in question, their bids were accepted and thus they were running the shops in the concerned areas. In the month of December, 1992, the structure in Ayodhya was demolished. As a sequel thereof disturbances and tension prevailed at several places in the State and the shops involved in the first two appeals noted above, were ordered to be closed during the period curfew was imposed in the areas concerned. In so far it relates to the group of shops involved in the third appeals, they were ordered to be closed during the periods of imposition of curfew due to communal disturbances between November, 1991 - January, 1992, in Aligarh.

(2.) In the above noted Civil Appeal No. 4673 of 1997, the High Court by means of the impugned judgment, quashed the order, rejecting the request of the respondent to allow remission and to pay compensation and remanded the matter to the authorities to reconsider their applications under paragraphs 179 and 190 of the Excise Manual and it was also directed that the amount as may be found liable for remission shall be paid to the licensees with interest @ 18% p.a. In the other appeal No. 5024 of 1997, the High Court, while quashing the order refusing to give remission, directed the State and its authorities to adjust the licence fee for the given period with interest @ 12% p.a. In the third appeal, namely, Civil Appeal No. 5828 of 1999, the court found that the contractor was allowed remission partially, which is in the discretion of the Government and as to in what proportion the remission is liable to be allowed would not be a matter to be decided in writ proceedings and for that purpose licensee may seek his remedy elsewhere.

(3.) The relevant facts for the purposes of this case, which admit of no dispute, are that in the State of Uttar Pradesh grant of exclusive privilege to manufacture or sale of liquor, at the relevant time was being given under a licence by auction system. The highest bidder would be issued licence to run the liquor shops. The auction would be held of one shop or group of shops in a particular area. The licensees in the above noted appeals had made bid for group of shops which were accepted by the authorities and the licences were issued to them for sale of liquor on the basis whereof they have been running the shops but the difficulty arose when curfew was imposed during certain periods due to disturbances and communal tensions.