LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-198

AMIT KUMAR VARSHNEY Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On April 03, 2008
AMIT KUMAR VARSHNEY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is being finally heard at the stage of admission.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 7. 3. 2008 passed by the State Government exercising revisional powers under section 11 (2) of the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). From a perusal of the order passed by the State Government it appears that upon oral instructions issued by the authorities at the district level, the running of the sub-shops of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were stopped. It also appears that such oral instructions were issued on a complaint/representation made by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the sub-shops which were being run by both the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had no legal authority and were not existing sub-shops for the main shop Iglas. Before the revisional authority respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had produced licence with regard to other sub-shops which were admitted to have been issued by the licensing authority by the excise inspector present at the time of the hearing of the revision. It may also be noted here that before the revisional authority the said excise inspector had stated that in the office of the District Excise Officer, Aligarh no papers were available with regard to such sub-shops being allotted in favour of the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

(3.) THE State Government by the impugned order had directed that the sub-shops of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 be allowed to continue and further that the District Magistrate, Aligarh shall examine as to whether the shop allotted to the petitioner effected the exclusive privileges of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and in case it does then the location of the said shop may be changed.