JAYAVARDHANAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Notification issued on the ground of procedural violation on two counts viz., existing licensees have been given time on the previous day contrary to the Rules and the fresh auction has been conducted without affording sufficient time.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid action of the respondents, there is a revenue loss. The power ought to have been exercised by the existing licensee within a period of one month before the date of expiry was not done. Under Rule 3 of The Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970, certificates will have to be obtained from different authorities. This would not have been possible during the pandemic situation. Thus, in view of the above said violation, the Notification will have to be set aside.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no procedural violation involved. Under Rule 156A of the The Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970, the existing licensee is permitted to seek for extension even the previous day which is accordingly followed. The petitioner without challenging the aforesaid Rule has come forward to file this writ petition. There is no mandate with respect to the number of days for the proposed auction. It was done in view of the starting point of the next excise year. Any decision to delay would incur loss of revenue to the respondents. The successful bidders have not been impleaded nor those who got their licences extended by way of renewal. Hence the writ petition will have to be dismissed.