SALEK CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Heard Shri Ram Raj learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.N.Mathur learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri H.P. Mathur learned Additional Chief Standing counsel.

(2.) ADMIT. Let notice be issued to private opposite parties, who have been arrayed in connected petitions also returnable at an early date. Impleadment may be done during the course of day. Liberty is given to the petitioner to serve notice on private opposite parties outside the court also. Office shall provide notices.

(3.) IT has also been submitted that the impugned policy decision has not been taken for augmentation of revenues but it has been made to extend undue benefit to the higher-ups and mafias who are working in the field of liquor. However, this allegation is denied by learned Additional Advocate General. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that keeping this in view, the impugned provision is contrary to the provisions contained in Sections 24-A, 24-B, 25 of the Act as well as statutory rules. According to him, even if assuming that the government has taken a policy decision to involve Apex Level Cooperative Society in sale and purchase of country liquor, the same cannot be done contrary to the earlier existing rules as well as statutory provision contained in the Excise Act. IT has been submitted that involvement of private bodies through agreement shall amount to sub-letting and not permissible under the statute. Private respondent shall be benefited without criminal liability.