T RAMA KRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the licensee of Koraput No. II IMFL 'OFF' shop for the excise year 2000 -01. The petitioner got the renewal of his licence for the excise year 2001 -02 commencing on 1.4.2001 and ending on 31.3.2002.

(2.) THE petitioner, in terms of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') had the obligation under Rule 6 -A of the said Rules, to guarantee the sale of and to lift the minimum guaranteed quantity of foreign liquor as fixed by the Excise Commissioner. A minimum guaranteed quantity per month was fixed for the shop. For the months of April, May and June, 2001, the petitioner did not lift the minimum guaranteed quantity. He did not apply to the Collector for permission to lift the quota during the succeeding month in terms of Rule 6 -A(2). He also did not lift it. In that .situation, the Superintendent of Excise, Koraput issued a notice to the petitioner dated 9.11.2001 calling upon the petitioner to lift the unlifted quantity by 21.11.2001. It was stated therein that on his failing to do so, action will be taken. Why such a notice was not issued earlier, is not made clear.

(3.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 6.11.2001 issued to him by the Superintendent of Excise, Koraput. The petitioner has not denied that he had not lifted the minimum guaranteed quantity of I.M.F.L. for the months of April, May and June, 2001. In other words, the fact that he did not lift the minimum guaranteed quantity for the months of April, May and June, 2001 is not disputed. That he had the obligation to lift it under Rule 6 -A and on the terms of his licence is also not disputed. The notice Annexure -5 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Koraput is hence perfectly justified and valid. If at all it is to be faulted, it can be faulted to the extent of noting that the Superintendent of Excise, Koraput should have issued that notice earlier since the default in lifting the quantity by the petitioner related to the months of April, May and June, 2001 and the notice was issued only in November, 2001.