SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks quashing of order dated 9.9.2010, Annexure P-8, cancelling liquor licence granted to the petitioner on accepting highest bid.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of public notice he applied for liquor vend licence by way of bid which was accepted and licence was granted on 24.4.2010. The petitioner started running the vend. Respondent No.3 approached this Court with a grievance that as per excise policy 2010-11, the existing liquor vendor was entitled to renewal and though respondent No.3 was existing liquor vendor and had sought renewal, the same was wrongly declined. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 3.8.2010, Annexure P-7, mainly on the ground that in case of other similarly placed existing vend holders, renewal had been allowed by the Department. Operative part of the order is as under:-

(3.) In compliance to order of this Court, impugned order has been passed. Reason given for cancellation is as under:- Here, it is also observed that in almost similar circumstances, two vends of Sh. Bijender Singh were renewed by the department. The circumstances of the case of Sh. Bijender Singh and Sh. Pawan Singh as stated above are almost similar but not identical because the date on which the department could take cognizance of their cases are also different. Sh. Bijender Singh approached the Hon'ble High Court in the month of March itself and by 5th of April, the orders for renewal for his vends had been issued. The vends are allotted from 1.4.2010 and the department was restrained from allotting this vend to anybody in the intervening period. However, as the present petition would itself show that the list of events in the petition are not in chronological order. The dates of 30.03.2010 and 05.04.2010 are written after 11/4/2010. This is because the petitioner Sh.Pawan Singh approached the Hon'ble High Court for the first time on 12/4/2010 only. This difference has materially resulted in the fact that the vend for which Sh. Pawan Singh wanted renewal, was allotted to Sh.Surender Singh who has been operating this vend till date. Sh. Surender Singh wants to run the vend for the entire year, but as has been established now that the grounds of common interest taken by the department to decline the claim of renewal of Sh. Pawan Singh cannot be considered conclusive and, therefore, now a situation has arisen when the department is left with no option but to offer renewal to Sh. Pawan Singh to run the vend for the remaining period of the excise year 2010-11. Though the present licencsee has submitted that he would like to run the vend but in the present circumstances, it is not possible. Faced with this situation and to set the things right, I hereby order that the petitioner Sh.Pawan Singh should approach DETC (X) Rohtak, for renewal of this vend for the remaining period of the current year (2010-11). DETC (Excise), Rohtak when approached by the petitioner Sh. Pawan Singh would cancel the allotment of the present licensee Sh. Surinder Singh and allot the vend to Sh. Pawan Singh petitioner subject to payment of 20% security of the balance license fee of the year which would be calculated on proportionate basis from the original renewal license fee of the vend for the remaining available period of the year. The installments would also be divided so as to comply with the rules of excise policy. It is further ordered that to safeguard the financial interests of the present licensee, he would be required to pay only the license fee of the period for which he runs the vend. If he has paid any additional amount, it would be refunded to him after the transfer of vend to the petitioner. A copy of the order may be sent to the petitioner and the DETC (Excise), Rohtak for immediate necessary action.