KARNAL DISTILLERY COMPANY LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from an order dated March 25, 1968 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 168 of 1968 whereby the High Court dismissed in limine the said appeal filed by the appellant against the order of March 18, 1968 of a single Judge of the said court in Civil Writ No. 39 of 1968. The appellant, the petitioner before the High Court, prayed for quashing of two orders of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner dated 18th December 1967 and 28th December, 1967.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are as follows. The appellant-company runs a distillery at Karnal and was engaged in the manufacture of liquor from molasses under a licence in form D2 granted under Section 21 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 by the Financial Commissioner of the State. The said licence was granted on certain conditions incorporated therein, the relevant ones being-

(3.) Nothing appears to have been done by the Commissioner for a long time thereafter. The cheque was not encashed but sent back to the appellant on July 13, 1965. Another cheque for the amount was sent to the Commissioner in December 1966 which too was not encashed. Apparently the Commissioner stayed his hands because of the pendency of the application for leave to appeal to this Court which was ultimately rejected. He gave a hearing to the appellant on June 5, 1967 whereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time. After hearing the parties finally on December 5, 1967 he passed an order cancelling the distillery licence turning down the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. The appellant made another representation to the Commissioner on December 27, 1967 and this was rejected by an order dated December 28, 1967. Both these orders show that the Commissioner took the view that the period of 15 days mentioned in the order of June 5, 1963 was a term of the order and failure to comply strictly therewith entailed the penal consequences directly flowing therefrom. The Commissioner was also of the view that the department could not insist upon recovering the penalty and the only course open was to consider whether or not the licence required to be cancelled. As the appellant was found to have failed to carry out the directions given under the Excise Act and the rules, the only course open was to cancel the licence.