LAWS(P&H)-2001-8-101

S.L. COMPANY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On August 13, 2001
S.L. Company Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A pub is normally the hub. The government of Haryana seems to recognize this truth. It has given a licence to respondent No. 5. The petitioner feel aggrieved. They allege that the respondent is not eligible. They pray that the order dated July 10, 2001 passed by the Commissioner be annulled. The short question is - Has the authority erred in providing a 'Bar' for the people of Hissar?

(2.) FIRST , the relevant facts. A wine contractor and two residents of Hissar are the petitioners in these two cases. The 5th respondent viz. M/s Lido Restaurant is the common target. It is alleged that the said restaurant does not have the "facilities or clientele at par with those available in restaurants attached to three-star hotels and duly approved by the Hotels and Restaurants Approval and Classification Committee". Thus, it does not conform to the requirements of Para 41(i) of the Excise Policy for the year 2001-2002 for the grant of L-4 and L-5 licences. The respondent does not also have "a proper marked parking area with security". The finding of the authority that "the parameters given in the Excise Policy of the year 2000-2001 which is applicable to the year 2001-2002 are met in case of application of M/s Lido Restaurant, Hissar", is untenable. Thus, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana has erred in passing the order dated July 10, 2001. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.9 with CWP No. 10956 of 2001 and as Annexure P.10 with CWP No. 10957 of 2001. The petitioners pray that this order be quashed.

(3.) THE 5th respondent maintains that the petitioners have no cause for grievance. Relying on the decision in CWP No. 14936 of 1999, it is stated that a person who holds L-2 and L-14A licences (like the petitioner in the present case) gets no cause for complaint when an L-4/L-5 licence is given to a person. Still further, the respondent points out that it was "certified as a duly approved restaurant by the Government of India on the recommendation of the HRACC (Hotels and Restaurant Approval and Classification Committee)." A copy of the letter dated June 14, 1999 has been produced as Annexure R.5/2 with the written statement. After this approval, the respondent had filed an application for the grant of licence. To thwart this, a civil suit was filed by a liquor licensee - M/s Hindustan Wine Company and two other persons at Hissar seeking a permanent injunction for restraining the State of Haryana from granting any Bar licence in Form L-4/L-5 to the respondent. The civil court had granted an ad interim injunction. It was subsequently vacated on August 6, 1999. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Additional District Judge had granted stay vide order dated August 14, 1999. The matter was finally decided by this Court in Civil Revision No. 4037 of 1999 vide order dated September 30, 1000. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.2 with the writ petition. It was inter-alia held that the Commissioner/competent authority shall decide the matter within a period of 10 days after considering the objections raised by the plaintiffs.