PARVESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashing of order dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure P-11) whereby Commissioner of Excise and Taxation, Haryana has rejected representation of the Petitioner seeking refund of licence fee paid for the period during which vends remained closed and refund of additional licence fee which has been charged at the time of re-opening of vends on the same location.

(2.) In State of Tamil Nadu Vs K. Balu 2017(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 1029 Hon'ble Supreme Court prohibited location of liquor vends within 500 meters from National/State Highways. The Respondent-Excise and Taxation Department prior to inviting bids for allotment of retail liquor vends for financial year 2017-18 vide letter dated 09.01.2017 and 21.02.2017 sought information from National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and PWD (B&R) about location of National/State highways in district Fatehabad. NHAI did not respond and PWD (B&R) did not show town Jakhal on the National Highway. The Respondent-Department provided in the Excise Policy of 2017-18 that no liquor vend shall be located within 500 meters from National/State Highway.

(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 11.07.2017 clarified that restriction of 500 meters for establishing liquor vends on highway does not prohibit licensed establishments located within municipal area. Accordingly, the State of Haryana decided to allow liquor vends abutting the highways passing through municipal areas. The Respondent vide memo dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-5) declared as under: