(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner to recover the dues of the excise department.
(2.) Paras Nath Dubey and Rama Kant Pandey, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were granted licence in Form FL 5 and the right to vend foreign liquor at Laldarwaja in the city of Ghazipur was settled in their favour by means of an auction held on 24.3.1997. They moved an application on 15.11.1979 before the Collector. Ghazipur praying that they may be permitted to take the petitioner Ram Dhani Prasad as a partner for the sale of foreign liquor at Laldarwaja as on account of several other contracts, they were finding it difficult to run the business properly. In this application, an endorsement was made by the petitioner that he was willing to become a partner along with respondent No. 5. This endorsement was also signed by the petitioner. A report was given by the Excise Inspector to the District Excise Officer that under Rule 337 of U. P. Excise Manual, the petitioner can be permitted to be impleaded as a co-licencee along with respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It appears that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 did not pay the entire dues of the department and accordingly, proceedings were initiated to recover the dues from the petitioner. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner are subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel has submitted that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 committed a fraud and they obtained the consent and signature of the petitioner on the application dated 15.11.1979 under the influence of intoxication and the petitioner had in fact never given consent to become a partner along with them. The contention raised relates to a question of fact which can only be determined after taking oral evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to adjudicate upon this question in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.