PANCHU RAM DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27-12-2003 passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Raipur whereby the Deputy Excise Commissioner clarified and modified the order dated 17-7-2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector (Excise) District Durg mentioning therein that in view of the Clause (a) of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules 1996'), the F.L. 3 licence holders are entitled to take liquor from any of the three shops of F.L. 1 mentioned at Item Nos. 20 and 21 of the Collector's order (Annexure P-3).

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner herein is a licence holder of F.L. 1 at Jharandalli of Dallirajhara Group for the year 2003-2004 up to 31st March, 2004, whereas the respondent No. 5 is also a holder of F.L. 1 licence of Dodilohara shop District Durg and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are F.L. 3 licence holders of Dallirajhara. As per the Excise Rules F.L. 1 licence holders are those licence holders in which the licence in Form F.L. 1 shall be disposed of by auction/tender or under the 'Fee-per-bottle system' or a combination of both the systems or in such other manner as the State Government may from time to time, by general or special order direct. The licensee, holding a licence in Form F.L. 1, shall sell foreign liquor in sealed bottles to consumers and to F.L. 2, F.L. 3 and F.L. 5 licensees. F.L. 3 licence holders are entitled to sell foreign liquor for consumption on the licensed premises to residents of such hotels for their own use or that of their guests and other casual visitors with meals and snacks. This licence may be granted to hotels having both lodging and boarding facilities of such scale and standard as may be determined by the State Government. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who are F.L. 3 licence holders are hoteliers, as per the licence condition they are supposed to purchase the foreign liquor as per their requirement from the F.L. 1 licence holders after obtaining permit from the Officers of Excise Department respondent Nos. 2 and 4. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 who are F.L. 1 licence holders are entitled to sell foreign liquor in sealed bottles to the consumers and F.L. 3 licence holders.

(3.) The petitioner and respondent No. 5 got the F.L. 1 licence for the period 2003-2004, i.e., upto 31st March, 2004. The petitioner's shop is at Jharandalli whereas the respondent No. 5's shop is at Dallirajhara. As per the case of the petitioner the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 used to issue transport permit in favour of the petitioner's shop for lifting the liquor by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for consumption and use in their hotel. As per the order (Annexure P-3) the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are required to issue permit to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to lift the foreign liquor from his shop in the first instance and in case a particular variety of liquor is not available with the petitioner then the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are required to issue a permit to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to lift that particular liquor from Balod shop which is at serial No. 2 in Annexure P-3 and further if that particular liquor is also not available at the shop situated at Balod then the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are required to issue permit to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to lift the liquor from Dodilohara shop, i.e., the shop of the respondent No. 5. It has been specifically mentioned in the order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector and this practice was continued in the year 2002-2003 and thereafter till 12-12-2003. However, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are interested to lift the liquor from the shop of the respondent No. 5 because the owner of the shop of respondent No. 5 is close relative of the respondent No. 7, therefore, from December, 2003 the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 started issuing permit in favour of respondent No. 5 which is evident from Annexure P-5. The shop of the respondent No. 5 is situated in other group, i.e., Balod and not in Dallirajhara group and as per the grouping scheme the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are required to lift the liquor from the petitioner's shop which falls in Dallirajhara Group and this act of the respondents has started affecting the business of the petitioner as the petitioner is paying monthly fee to the tune of Rs. 6,34,789.00. In order to achieve their object the respondent No. 7 filed a civil suit before the Additional District Judge, Balod seeking order that the Excise Department be directed to allow him to lift the liquor from the shop of respondent No. 5. When the respondent No. 7 could not succeed in that civil suit he made a representation to the Excise Commissioner and the Excise Commissioner without giving any opportunity of hearing and giving notice to the petitioner allowed the representation of the respondent No. 7 and modified the order passed by the Collector (Annexure P-3) vide impugned order dated 27th December, 2003. Therefore, the order impugned dated 27-12-2003 (Annexure P-5) be quashed and the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 be directed to issue permit in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure P-3.