ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJES Kumar, J. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: " (a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 23-9-2005, received by the petitioners on 08-10-2005, passed in Excise Revision No. 69 of 2005, Anil Kumar & Anr. v. Excise Commissioner & Ors. (Annexure-1 to this writ petition) (b) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (c) to award cost of the petition to the petitioners. "

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are, that under the New Excise Rules, namely. Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "rule, 2002"), the settlement of the country liquor shops of the District Etawah for the excise year, 2002-2003 took place Under Rule, 2002, the country liquor shop known as Bhartana No. 2 was settled in favour of petitioner No. Land shop known as Bhartana No. 3 was settled in favour of petitioner No. 2 in a lottery drawn on 25th March, 2002. THE minimum guaranteed quota for the aforesaid shop of petitioner No. 1 was 42,000 bulk litres, the basic licence fee was Rs. 4,20,000/- and the minimum guaranteed quota for the shop of petitioner No. 2 was 39,000 bulk litres, the basic licence fee was Rs. 3,90. 000/ -. earnest money was Rs. 39. 000/- and the security amount was Rs. 3,19,300/-

(3.) THEREAFTER, on 12-9-2003, the petitioners received demand notices dated 19-7-2003 by which the demands were raised for the payment of licence fee allegedly for surrendering their licences under Section 36 of the Act and Rule 19 of the New Rules. On being challenged, the said notices have been quashed by the Excise Commissioner vide orders dated 18-11-2003. The notices were quashed on the ground that they were not in accordance to the Rules.