SATYASEELAN Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, Mr. Satyaseelan, aggrieved by the impugned auction notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Puducherry, the second respondent in No. 1060/thu.Aa(Ka)/Auction/2015 -16 Puducherry dated 8.6.2015, has filed the present writ petition to quash the same insofar as the Shop No. 1A allotted to the petitioner is concerned in item No. 1 of the notification with a consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the arrack shop for the period 2015 -16, as the license for the period 2014 -15 was unutilized by non supply of arrack by the respondents.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that originally the petitioner was the successful bidder of the arrack shop at No. 1A of Ariyankuppam Commune Panchayat and also No. 6A of Abishegapakkam for the excise year 2013 -14 from 1.7.2013 to 30.6.2014 and subsequently the petitioner had also renewed the licence for the same shops for the period from 1.8.2014 to 30.6.2015. While so, the Government issued a notification for public auction of retail vending of toddy and arrack shops for the year 2014 -15 in Government Gazette No. 75 Extraordinary dated 1.7.2014, clearly specifying the location of shops in each area. As per the notification, a successful bidder should have established the shop only in the location mentioned in the said notification and unless they get permission from the respondents, they cannot shift the shop to any other place than the one specified n the notification. In the meanwhile, one Jayalakshmi, who was the successful bidder of Shop License No. 2, Manavely Revenue Village in Ariyankuppam Commune Panchayat, has wrongly established her shop other than the location mentioned in the notification, which is very close to the petitioner's shop No. 1A of Ariyankuppam, as a result the sale of arrack in his shop got constantly reduced to one -third of the actual sale facing the problem of payment of kist to the Government, because there is a specific condition in the notification that the petitioner should take the minimum quantity of arrack as per the notification. But due to the closer location of the Jayalakshmi's arrack shop violating the notification, the petitioner could not take the minimum quantity of arrack, for which he is liable to pay the kist/notional loss to the Government, therefore, he made a representation to the respondents on 1.8.2014 to take appropriate action against the said Jayalakshmi with a further request to locate the arrack shop No. 2, Manavely village as specified in the Gazette notification. But the official respondents refused to take action. Adding further the learned counsel submitted that even in the previous year, Shop No. 2, Manavely village was located in the land bearing Plot Nos. 23 and 24, which was objected to by the villagers of Srinivasa Kudiyiruppu. In addition to the objection, there was also continuous agitation throughout the year against the said shop No. 2, therefore, the shop was located in a different place, which is also far off from the original place.

(3.) Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 21990 of 2014 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to take appropriate action against the said Jayalakshmi for running the arrack shop at Manavely village in violation of the conditions of location mentioned in the Gazette notification No. 75 Extraordinary dated 1.7.2014 and also to take action to shift the shop of the said Jayalakshmi as per the notification within a reasonable time. This Court, by order dated 31.10.2014, directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's objection dated 1.8.2014 as well as the objection from the President of Arulmighu Sri Muthumariamman Devasthanam, Manavely dated 31.7.2014 and the objection of Sri Ragavendira English School, Manavely Main Road dated 1.8.2014 with a specific observation that if the said Jayalakshmi was running the shop in the place not specified in the Gazette, then immediate action should be taken to close down the shop. In spite of the said order, there was no response, therefore the petitioner, after issuing the pre -contempt notice on 22.11.2014 to the respondents 1 & 2, finding no response, filed a contempt petition before this Court in Contempt Petition No. 3348 of 2014.