NANDLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was granted licence for sale of country liquor in form C.S. 3 for the year 1981 -82. There was a condition in the licence (Condition No. 2 -C) whereunder the minimum quantity of liquor which was required to be lifted from warehouse for sale was fixed and if any licensee takes less than the minimum quantity of liquor fixed for each quarter, the Collector was authorised to impose a penalty to the extent of Rs. 20/ - per proof litre.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner, that he could not get the requisite supplies in the first two quarters i.e. for a period of nearly about six months and therefore he could not lift the minimum quantity of the liquor fixed under the licence. As the petitioner could not lift the minimum quantity fixed of the liquor, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice with reference to the shops sold to him and the penalty was imposed by the Collector. As the penalty was imposed by the Collector without hearing the petitioner, the petitioner challenged the order of imposition of penalty before this Court by filing a writ petition, i.e. M.P. No. 785/82 decided on 29.9.1982. This Court quashed the orders of imposition of penalty against the petitioner in respect of different shops. Thereafter fresh show cause notices were issued to the petitioner for imposition of penalty on the ground that the petitioner has not lifted the minimum quantity of the quota fixed under the licence and the petitioner filed replies to the show cause notices, submitting that there was no adequate supply available of the liquor from the warehouse for a period of near about six months; he was not given the minimum quantity of the quota required to be lifted by him and thus there is no default on his part and proceeding for imposition of penalty by the Collector is unwarranted and ultra vires of M.P. Excise Act. The petitioner was required to lift minimum quantity of quota for each shop and separate cases were registered by the Collector in respect of the different shops held by the petitioner and the Collector passed an order imposing the penalty of Rs. 2/ - per proof litre for the less quantity lifted by the petitioner. The order of the Collector was confirmed by the Excise Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh and further appeal to the Board of Revenue preferred by the petitioner was also rejected.

(3.) IT is contended by the counsel for petitioner that while the show cause notice for imposition of penalty for short lifting of liquor was issued by the District Excise Officer, Balaghat, the case was heard and decided by the Collector and therefore the order imposing penalty on the petitioner is bad; the Collector has no authority and jurisdiction to pass any order in the case. We need not go into the merits of the submission made by the petitioner's counsel as factually it is not correct that the notice to show cause (Annexure -P/9) was not issued by the Collector. It was not only issued from the office of the Collector, but it was issued for and on behalf of the Collector by the District Excise Officer, Balaghat. Therefore it should be deemed that the notices were issued by the Collector and the Collector is competent to pass the order.