BANERJI MEMORIAL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is a club. It was issued a license in terms of R.13(4A) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. With the passage of time, it appears that controversies arose as to whether the land and building held by the club belong to it. After statutory proceedings, the parties reached this Court. The contentions of the club were repelled by this Court in Annexure R1(b) judgment, essentially holding that the club could not claim title or right to be in possession of the land in question. Therefore, this Court refused to interfere with the proceedings initiated under the Land Conservancy Act. That matter is pending, at the instance of the club, in WA 2423 of 2008. Clarifying Ext. P2 interlocutory order in that appeal, Ext. P3 was issued granting stay of dispossession, however that continuance in possession should be otherwise in accordance with law. I note those interim orders only to assure that by the force of that protective order, the club continues to be in possession and is not to be dispossessed by the statutory authorities under the Land Conservancy Act as of now. When the Land Conservancy proceedings were pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner, the club filed WP (C) 11578 of 2008 and obtained Ext. P7 interlocutory order directing renewal of the foreign liquor license, without reference to ownership of the property. Such an order was issued at that point of time having regard to the fact that proceedings were then pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner. In fact, I had issued Ext. P7 order making it subject to the result of the revision then pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner. It was thereafter that Annexure R1(b) judgment was issued by this Court, after Annexure R1(a) order was issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner.

(3.) The petitioner club is aggrieved by Ext. P4 bearing the date 15/07/2009 and served on them on 17/07/2009. It is pointed out by its learned senior counsel that service of Ext. P4 was itself made a high drama by service of the said notice in the evening of 17/07/2009. While the learned Additional Advocate General disputes this, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into that aspect.