JITENDRA KUMAR LAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of facts and law are raised in these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Collector (Excise), District Koriya, Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement dated 15-2-2011 calling applications for grant of license for 33 liquor shops in 19 groups in District Koriya for the year 2011-2012. The petitioners being desirous to obtain license for running liquor shops, submitted their applications for different groups in prescribed forms as per advertisement dated 15-2-2011. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1599/2011 submitted applications for liquor shop of group No. 5 - Manendragarh, group No. 6 -Jhagrakhaand & group No. 10 - Nagpur; petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1790/2011 submitted application for group No. 9 - Janakpur; petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1791/2011 submitted applications for group No. 5 - Manendragarh & group No. 18 - Bartunga; petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1792/2011 submitted applications for group No. 5 - Manendragarh, group No. 6 - Jhagrakhaand, group No. 7 -Khongapani & group No. 10 - Nagpur; likewise petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1793/2011 submitted applications for group No. 5 - Manendragarh, group No. 6 - Jhagrakhaand & group No. 16 - Koriya Block. The applications were received till 5.30 p.m. of 28-2-2011. All the petitioners submitted their applications for respective groups, which is not in dispute. A comparative chart of the applications received against different groups was prepared on 28-2-2011. According to the respondents, in all 5441 applications were received for allotment of liquor shops of different groups. The chart prepared on 28-2-2011 shows the number of application forms received for each group. After the scrutiny another comparative chart, dated 3-3-2011 was prepared. In the said chart the number of applications received against group No. 4 -Pandopara, group No. 5 - Manendragarh, group No. 6 - Jhagrakhaand, group No. 10 - Nagpur, group No. 12 - Mohancolony, group No. 16 - Koriya Block & group No. 18 - Bartunga were different. The case of the petitioners is that the difference in total number of application forms against different group numbers is an outcome of manipulation of the authorities of the Excise Department who joined hands with the selected liquor contractors, in whose favour the shops of different groups were later on allotted. It is on these grounds and also on the grounds of alleged arbitrariness and malafides, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the results of lottery draw conducted on 15-3-2011 and to quash the entire selection relating to the ten groups in which difference in number of forms received has been determined on perusal of the 2 comparative charts.

(3.) The State and its authorities have contended that different counters were opened for receiving applications of different groups. In all 5441 applications were received on different counters. The chart prepared on 28-2-2011 was on the basis of number of applications received on different counters of different groups. However, when the applications received on different counters were scrutini-ed on 1-3-2011, it was found that many applicants have submitted their applications on those counters which were meant for other groups. The total number of application forms, i.e., 5441 were then scrutini-ed group-wise and a final chart dated 3-3-2011 was prepared showing the total number of applications received for each group. It is on this account, the variation in number of applications received for each group appears in 2 charts prepared on 28-2-2011 and 3-3-2011. However, the total number of application forms in both the charts are same. Therefore, the allegations relating to manipulation, arbitrariness and illegality are false and baseless.