RISHAN PARIAT Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner holds a bar license, which was granted by the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, issued on 22/12/2023, and renewed on 16/5/2024 under the Meghalaya Excise Act, after meeting all statutory requirements, including obtaining of an NOC from the respondent No. 6 i.e. the Dorbar Shnong of Nongkhyriem, through the Headman. However, the respondent No. 6, thereafter cancelled the NOC which resulted in the writ petitioner being unable to lift the liquor from the bonded warehouse, inspite the bar license being valid. Aggrieved with the action of the respondent No. 6, which the petitioner contends has resulted in disruption of his business operation and has caused financial losses, he is before this Court by way of this instant writ petition seeking appropriate directions.

(2.) Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Dkhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 6, to the setting up of the bar had issued a No Objection Certificate dtd. 31/7/2023, in favour of the writ petitioner, conveying the No Objection of the Executive Committee of the Dorbar Shnong. Thereafter, he submits a rental agreement was executed on 2/8/2023, with the proprietor of the building, where the bar was to be situated, at a monthly rate of Rs.30,000.00 only, and the respondent No. 5 (Inspector of Excise) had also conducted an enquiry on 4/9/2023, with regard to the application of the writ petitioner for grant of license or 'IMFL' On License. The respondent No. 4, he submits then vide letter dtd. 22/12/2023, conveyed the approval for grant of license for a period upto 31/3/2024, subject to the observance of the rules and payment of the prescribed fees, to which the petitioner complied, and on 22/3/2024 deposited the required fees vide Challan on 23/2/2024. However, he submits when the writ petitioner failed to receive the permit for lifting the liquor, and on his enquiry, was informed by the respondent No. 3 vide letter dtd. 1/10/2024, that in order to operate the bar, he was to revisit the respondent No. 6, and co-ordinate with them for conducting a fresh public meeting for local public opinion.

(3.) The petitioner he submits thereafter, came to learn that inspite of the issuance and renewal of license being as per prescribed procedure and due process followed, the NOC had been recalled by the respondent No. 6, for the reason that it had been issued hastily. The learned Senior counsel submits that though the petitioner requested for a review of the decision, and a meeting was also held with the respondents No. 1-5, on 5/11/2024, the respondent No. 6, had conveyed their stand that its members were not willing to revoke the cancellation of the NOC. This situation he submits, persisted and even on the request of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong for a joint inspection cum meeting, with regard to the NOC for the bar, the respondent No. 6 categorically conveyed that the decision taken to revoke the NOC was non-negotiable. The petitioner's rights he submits, due to the arbitrary action of the respondent No. 6, has been violated, and he has been made to suffer substantial financial loss. As such, he prays that directions be issued to the State respondents to issue and renew the permit to allow the petitioner to lift the liquor from the bonded warehouse for retail sale in his bar premises.