RAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the citation dated 20-4- 1982, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, issued by the Tehsildar, Kanpur, demanding a sum of Rs. 21,500/-from the petitioner without disclosing on what account the demand was being made. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to drop the recovery proceedings for the aforesaid sum.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he offered a bid for the grant of licence to run a Bhang shop for the year 1981-82 and his bid for Rs. 50,000/- was provisionally ac cepted and he deposited Rs. 8,500/- in advance. THE bid was subject to approval by the Excise Commissioner who did not approve the bid. Consequently, the petitioner was granted temporary licence and he deposited a sum of Rs. 102. 50/- on 3-4-1981. THE Excise Officer vide letter dated 3-5-1981 offered to the petitioner to run the said shop on temporary daily licence fee basis which was not accepted by the petitioner. Despite non-acceptance of the offer by the petitioner, the District Excise Officer unilaterally granted tem porary licence to the petitioner for the period 3-5-1981 to 9- 5-1981 on a licence fee of Rs. 959/ -. THE District Excise Officer also threatened the petitioner that in the event of his failure to run the shop and he would have to face the consequences. THE petitioner's case is that no notice was given to him before issuing the recovery certifi cate and the same has been issued ar bitrarily.

(3.) WE, therefore, allow this petition and quash the demand of Rs. 21,500/- as mentioned in the citation dated 20-4-1982. It would be open to the respondents to take fresh appropriate proceeding after issuing a fresh notice of demand to the legal representative of the petitioner, the petitioner having died, giving necessary details and after hearing their Objections, if any. Petition allowed. .