GAYCO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER DELHI STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order dated August 4, 1972 of a learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing certain orders of the Excise authorities as a result whereof the appellants were refused renewal of their L-1 licence for the whole-sale and retail vend to the trade of foreign liquor. In January, 1967 the appellants were granted the aforesaid licence under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", as in force in Delhi. On or about June 6, 1970, the godowns of the appellants and the houses of some of its officers were raided and searched by the Police and the Excise authorities. It is alleged that four wooden boxes containing drums which contained about 180 1bs. of rectified spirit were recovered and it was also found that the liquor in stock was short by 1-1/2 bottles than what it should have been according to the stock register. A case was registered on June 7, 1970 with the Sadar Bazar Polite Station against the appellants under section 61 of the Act which provides a penalty for, inter alia, unlawful possession of any intoxicant. A few days later, a notice was issued to the appellants under section 36 of the Act as to why their licence be not cancelled or suspended but proceedings in pursuance of this notice were stayed by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi pending the disposal of the aforesaid criminal case under section 61 of the Act.

(2.) Because the grant of such licence is for a year commencing on April 1 and expiring on March 31 in the next year, the appellants on January 1, 1971 applied to the Collector, who is the competent authority in this behalf, for a renewal of the licence for the year commencing April 1, 1971. On January 14, 1971 the Collector issued a notice under rule 5.12 of the Delhi Excise Manual, Volume II, stating that he did not propose to renew the appellants' licence. The relevant part of this rule provides :-

(3.) The appellants appeared before the Collector and asked for time. On January 20, 1971 the Collector finally passed an order that the licence held by the appellants shall not be renewed for the coming financial year 1971-72. It appears that during the proceedings before him, the appellants requested for adjournments more than once but the Collector did not acceed to these requests and adjourned the proceedings only on one occasion and that too only for a day. Against the order of the Collector, the appellants filed an appeal before the Excise Commissioner. By his order dated February 10, 1971 the Excise Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case to him to be decided in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. He held that adequate opportunity had not been allowed to the appellants.