SHIV KUMAR Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are four in number, seek the following reliefs :

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : "According to the petitioners, during the excise year 1976-77 the father of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioner No. 4 were the joint licencees (hereinafter referred to as "F.L. 5 licencees") for the retail vend of Indian-made foreign liquor shop situated at Cooperganj in the district of Kanpur Nagar. A provisional licence was issued to F.L. 5 licencees. They had also deposited a sum of Rs. 14,000 as security. Some dispute arose in respect of the location of the shop, which resulted in the shop being sealed by the excise authorities and subsequently, the licence was also cancelled by the Collector, Kanpur Nagar. The shop was reauctioned on 7.2.1977 for a sum of Rs. 4,000. The recovery proceeding was initiated for the short fall of Rs. 18,285, being the difference in the first and second auction, Against the recovery proceeding, the father of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Lal Ram, filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4886 of 1979. Vide order dated 19.7.1979, this Court stayed the recovery of the amount in pursuance of the citation dated 29.5.1979 subject to the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee. According to the petitioners, the bank guarantee was furnished. The aforementioned writ petition had been dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 21.1.1998. It is alleged that an application for recall/restoration is pending in the said writ petition. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the bank guarantee has been encashed by the respondent No. 1 on 3.2.1998. The Collector, Kanpur Nagar, had issued a recovery certificate on 29.7,1999 directing the Collector, Unnao, respondent No. 2, to recover a sum of Rs. 42,293 towards interest which is due from the father of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioner No. 4 as arrears of land revenue. The recovery certificate dated 29.7.1999 is under challenge in the present writ petition."

(3.) We have heard Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. P. Kesarwani, learned standing counsel for the respondents.