RATANLAL BHIKAMALAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was listed for admission on 3-8-1987. When it was taken up, learned counsel for the parties made a joint request that it may be heard finally at this very stage. We accordingly heard the writ petition in part on 3-8-1987. During the course of arguments, one of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners was that the impugned orders imposing penalty, even though quasi-judicial orders, did not record reasons. In regard to this argument, learned Advocate General, however, pointed out with reference to the original record that reasoned orders had been passed and the impugned orders were really orders demanding the amount imposed as penalty and contained mere communication of the reasoned orders passed in this behalf. He prayed for and was granted 10 days' time to file an additional return attaching thereto copies of the reasoned orders imposing penalty. The petitioners were granted two weeks' time thereafter to file an additional rejoinder/affidavit. The necessary additional return and additional rejoinder/affidavit have been filed.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 2, M/s Mahakoshal Traders is a registered partnership firm of which petitioner No. 1 Ratanlal is one of the partners. Petitioner No. 2 has 19 other partners. Petitioner No. 2 is carrying on business of excise liquor contractor. At an auction held in this behalf for the year 1986-87, the petitioners were granted 8 licences in form No. C. S. 3 for 8 shops, whereas licences in regard to 6 shops were granted to M/s punjab Traders, M/s Maniram Rai and M/s Kailashchand and Co. who according to the petitioners, are sister concerns of petitioner No. 2. Subsequently, with the permission of the Excise Commissioner, these 6 shops were transferred to petitioner No. 2 and in this manner, petitioner No. 2 became the licensee of all the 14 shops.

(3.) THE licence so granted to petitioner No. 2, inter alia, contained a condition, being condition No. 2-C. It prescribed the minimum quantity for taking issue from the warehouse for sale. It further prescribed that on failure of the licensee to lift in any quarter of the year the quarterly minimum quantity specified therein, the Collector may impose a penalty at the rate not exceeding Rs. 20. 00 per proof litre, for every litre of spirit so falling short. It contained a proviso to the effect that any amount realised by way of such penalty shall be refunded if the annual minimum quantity specified above is lifted in full by the end of the year. On the ground that the petitioners had failed to lift the minimum quantity specified in condition No. 2-C, notices were issued to the petitioner No. 2 to show cause as to why penalty may not be imposed in accordance with condition No. 2-C aforesaid.