MANISH SRIVASTAV Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is running foreign liquor shop at Siddhartha Mill Road, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar in the financial year 2018-19. Respondents issued a Policy which provides for renewal of the liquor shop for the financial year 2019-2020 on enhancement of 20% in the revenue paid by the said shop in the previous financial year 2018-19. Petitioner desirous of renewal of his liquor shop at Siddhartha Mill Road applied in the prescribed format along with pay order of Rs. 2,26,800/- as renewal fees. Respondent vide impugned order dated 18.02.2019 has directed for renewal of the petitioner's shop with the condition that the petitioner's shop will now run from Hariyawala region in Jaspur near Siddhartha Mill. Being aggrieved with the condition that the petitioner shall run his shop from Hariyawala Jaspur, petitioner made a representation to the respondent authority on 20.02.2019 but instead of deciding petitioner's representation, the respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 22.02.2019 has cancelled the renewal of liquor shop for non-payment of license fee and has confiscated the renewal fee of Rs.2,26,800/-.

(3.) Earlier, the petitioner has approached this court by way of WPMS No.1899 of 2018 assailing the action of the respondents whereby the liquor shop allotted to the petitioner at Siddhartha Mill Road, Kashipur, was ordered to be closed. However, the Coordinate Bench dismissed writ petition on a technical ground whereagainst the petitioner preferred Special Appeal No.612 of 2018 before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 09.08.2018, set-aside the order of the Coordinate Bench and directed the respondents to open the liquor shop to permit the appellant to run his business in accordance with law. While doing so, the Division Bench observed that the petitioner was allotted liquor shop at Sidhartha Mill Road without specifying the particular place on this road and that the petitioner cannot be penalized for not specifying the particular place at Siddhartha Mill Road by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, State/respondents preferred Special Leave Petition being SLP No.32379 of 2018 before Supreme Court, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued notices to the petitioner.