S. SREE KUMAR Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition challenging the issuance of bar licences by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District in respect of M/s Haddo Point Bar and Restaurant, Haddo, Port Blair and M/s Hotel Shalimar Inn Bar and Restaurant, Delanipur, Port Blair. According to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in a civil suit pending between the respondent No.4 and the petitioner with regard to an agreement in which the two bars are subject matters of dispute, an injunction order was passed and the said order was communicated to the authorities concerned with an objection to issue of any bar licence in respect of the said bars either to the respondent No.4 or in respect of any person. The son of the respondent No.4 is the respondent no.5, Shri Krishna Mohan who applied for bar licence in respect of the two bars.

(2.) By an order dated November 13, 2018, the said application for grant of licence made by the respondent No. 5 was not considered at that stage and was kept pending for consideration after the disposal of the suit. The order was intimated to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner as well. In the said communication, the application of the learned advocate of the petitioner dated October 26, 2018 containing the objection of the petitioner was also referred to. From the records of the case placed before me, it is evident that there was an objection made by the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the authorities initially did not grant bar licence in respect of the bar. It appears thereafter, that by an order dated November 21, 2018, bar licences were granted in respect of the two bars but without communicating the same to the petitioner or the petitioner's learned advocate. The petitioner was not called for a hearing. The objection of the petitioner was not considered.

(3.) The learned advocate for the state-respondent was directed to produce the records in order to show how the licences were issued. He has produced the records before me from which it would be appear that by an undated letter, the respondent no.5 requested for grant of the licence in view of the fact that he was not a party to the suit and there was no injunction against him. Thereafter, I find from certain office notes on the file that the application of the respondent No.5 was considered and the licence was given in his name but there has been no mention about the objection raised by the petitioner nor was the petitioner called or intimated the about the change of mind of the authorities within a period of seven days from the date of the application of the respondent no.5. Mr. S.C.Mishra appearing on behalf of the state-respondent submits that they have followed section 14 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Excise Regulation, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation) and he submits that there was no bar in granting the licence in the name of the respondent no.5. Mr. Kumar has produced the records of proceedings which was obtained under RTI Act from which it is seen that on the basis of the letter (undated), the authorities considered the matter and granted the licences. But, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner as the objector was heard or informed about the matter. However, Mr. Kumar vehemently submits that this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the existence of the alternative remedy and Mr. Kumar further relies on the judgment of a Four Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 578 . According to him, the petitioner was not a person aggrieved and as such did not have any right to maintain the writ petition.