ANOOP KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the afore-captioned batch of writ petitions, the cause of action for filing writ petitions and the relief sought are identical in nature and as such all the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) Heard Sri S.K. Srivastava, Ms. Appoli Srivastava, Sri Amitabh Rai, Ms. Sujata Srivastava, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr.Ahilesh Kalra and Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Namit Sharma, Sri R. K.Singh, Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh and Sri Shafiq Mirza, learned Counsel for the respective opposite parties and Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

(3.) All the petitioners, except the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 2493 (MB) of 2004, Writ Petition No. 2511 (MB) of 2004, writ petition no. 2510 (MB) of 2004 and writ petition no. 2354(MB) of 2004, are holders of excise licenses for selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor in sealed bottles for which licences were granted to them as per provisions of The U.P. Excise Act, on payment of license fee for financial year 2001-2002 by the Collector, Lucknow. They have questioned the bye-laws framed by Nagar Nigam,Lucknow, which enjoins upon the petitioners to take licence, in view of clause 5 and 7 of the Bye-laws, from Nagar Nigam for selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and pay Rs. 12,000/- per annum as licence fee.