DEBENDRA BANDHU LAHIRI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why the findings, judgments and orders complained of in the petition should not be set aside and/or brought up for correction or why the license of the petitioner should not be restored to him or why a Writ of, or in the. nature of, Mandamus and/or Certiorari should not issue restraining the respondents from giving effect to the orders complained of. An ad interim order was granted staying the operation of the order of cancellation of the license pending the hearing of this Rule.

(2.) The facts shortly are as follows: The petitioner was the holder of a license in respect of a country spirit shop at Wasabari in the district of Jalpaiguri. On 12-2-1950, at about 6 p. m. Janab A. Matleb, Superintendent of Excise, Jalpaiguri, made a surprise inspection of the shop. The way in which the inspection was conducted is as follows: A trial purchaser by the name of Shawna Gariman was sent into the shop by the Superintendent to buy a bottle of country liquor which should contain 20 ozs. of 77.5 U. P. country liquor, the prescribed price being Rs. 0-l4-6p. A sum of Rs. 0-7-6p. was payable for the bottle refundable if the bottle was returned. While the bottle was being purchased, the Superintendent stood outside watching the transaction. Immediately on the purchase being concluded, the Superintendent entered the shop and the bottle was found to contain not 20 ozs. but 16 ozs. The price charged was Rs. 1-6-0 which is above the price that could be charged for 16 ozs. and the bottle was under-weight. There is a previous conviction of the petitioner for selling underweight. The Inspector (Superintendent?) also discovered the following other irregularities. The petitioner was absent from the shop at the time of the trial purchase and' the sales were being conducted by a salesman who was not registered according to the excise rules. Upon examination it was further found that the account books were not up to date but were written only up to the 10th February 1950 and even that was not complete.

(3.) On 30-3-1950 a notice was served by the said Mr. Matleb, Superintendent of Excise Jalpaiguri, upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be penalised for the following irregularities as detected on the 12th February 1950. (1) The account-books were not found to be written after the sales of 10-2-50 (including the bottling Register and the Cash Book.) (2) The trial purchaser was served only 16 oz. of 77.5 U. P. liquor while he demanded 20 ozs. (3) Rs. 1-6-0 was charged for 16 oz. of 77.5 U. P. liquor. (4) Sales conducted by an unauthorised salesman Raghunath Prosad Shaw.