RAJA RAM Vs. MOOLRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Special Appeal against a decision given by Mr. Justice Broome in a writ petition which was moved in this Court under Art - 226 of the Constitution by Moolraj Singh. To this petition were arrayed as Respondents the R.C.E.O., Saharanpur, the District Excise Officer, Saharanpur, and Lala Mansa Ram as owner of the premises.

(2.) The Petitioner Moolraj Singh alleged himself to be the tenant of shop No. 7/1889, Mohalla Ram Nagar Pathanpura, Saharanpur. He alleged that he had been in occupation of this shop since 1954 and that he had been paying rent for these premises to Lala Mansa Ram, the landlord thereof. The Petitioner was at one time a licensee for selling country liquor and other excisable commodities and apparently he did business in the aforementioned premises. Sometime in early 1960 the Excise Commissioner, U.P., found that difficulty had been experienced in certain places in respect of getting accommodation for liquor shops in case the liquor license was not renewed in favour of the old licensee. Liquor licenses are auctioned each year and they are given to the highest bidder at the auction. Therefore, it happens that the same person who was a licensee in one year does not necessarily become a licensee in the succeeding year. In order to assure accommodation for licensed liquor shops District Officers of the State were requested by means of a circular letter emanating, apparently, from the Excise Commissioner to make allotments of premises where Excise shops were to be maintained in favour of the Excise Inspector of the circle concerned or the District Excise Officer.

(3.) On the 8th February, 1960, the liquor license for the area in which the premises in dispute lay was auctioned for the period 1960 -61. According to the Petitioner the auction was closed in favour of Mukand Lal who was the highest bidder. The actual license which must have been granted by the Excise Department in pursuance of the auction purchase has not been filed by any of the parties in this case. So that, the best evidence, as to who was the licensee of the excise shop for the year 1960 -61 in respect of the area in question, was not on the record and therefore it could not for certain be held as to who the licensee for the year 1960 -61 was.