GARG WINE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner-firm has sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat it (petitioner) at par with the other licensees who have been allowed to surrender their licenses without any cost or risk and to allow it to surrender its license for the Excise Zones ZAMB03, ZAMB05 and ZAMB08. A further prayer for directing the respondents not to charge the license fee beyond the quota lifted by the petitioner, in view of the low sale volumes and its claim for surrender of the above-said licenses, has also been made.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the averments as put-forth by the petitioner in this petition, are that it is a proprietorship firm owned by Mr. Vijay Garg. After issuing the Excise Policy for the year 2020-21, the respondents issued public notice for inviting the e-tenders for allotment of the licenses for the zones of retail vends of country liquor and IMFL for the said year in the State of Haryana. It (petitioner) deposited a sum of Rs.3.05 crore as earnest money and another sum of Rs.14 lac as participation fee in the corpus created in compliance of the said policy. After submitting bids for several excise zones, it was declared successful for five zones on 13.03.2020 and for two more zones in the second round of bidding on 20.03.2020 and out of these total 07 zones, 04 are urban and 03 are rural zones. The excise year was to commence from the month of April, 2020 but due to the outbreak of Pandemic Covid-19, the Government imposed the lock-down and keeping in view the scenario arising therefrom, the petitioner requested the respondents, vide e-mail dated 23.03.2020, to cancel its bids by invoking the special powers as envisaged in Clause 2.12 of the Excise Policy but the respondents started pressurizing it to withdraw the said e-mail or otherwise, to face the rigour of Clause 2.17 of the said Policy which provides that in the case of surrender/cancellation of the license, the re-allotment of zone was to be done at the risk and cost of the original allottee and they also informed it that the Government had decided not to charge the license fee for the lock down period. In view of these circumstances and also under the fear of forfeiture of the sum of more than Rs.4 crores, as was already lying deposited with the respondents as earnest money, security deposit and refunds of the earlier excise years, it withdrew the said e-mail.

(3.) The petitioner has also averred that on 05.05.2020, the respondents, in pursuance of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, made some amendments in the said Excise Policy whereby the liquor vends were allowed to open from 06.05.2020 morning at 7:00 a.m. Vide the said amendments, several benefits, which were the integral part of the Policy, were withdrawn and the bars, restaurants, clubs, marriage-halls etc. were closed and the timings of the liquor vends were also restricted which has adversely affected the sale of the liquor at the vends. Moreover, in the amended Policy, no provision was made regarding the 'Exit Clause' and hence, it (petitioner) started its limited operations from the above-stipulated day after arranging for the stock of the liquor, salesmen etc. but after 10-15 days, it realised the substantial dip in its sales which was to the extent of 50%-70% in the urban area and 25%-40% in the rural area. The reserve price for the left-over/unallotted excise zones was also considerably reduced. In such circumstances, the petitioner again moved a representation dated 27.07.2020 to the respondents with a request to allow it to have an exit from the clauses of the Policy. Thereafter, it, along-with some other licensees, preferred Civil Writ Petition No.9904 of 2020 before this Court for challenging the levy of Covid-Cess on the liquor and in the written-reply as filed by the respondent-State therein, it has been mentioned that some licensees were allowed to withdraw/exit from the policy without any cost meaning thereby that the respondents have discriminated against it while treating its prayer for surrender/cancellation of the licenses of the said excise zones. Thus, the respondents have acted illegally in granting unjustified concession to said licensees.