M/S VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order a bunch of writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 2796,3005, 3006, 3007, 3456 and 3632 of 1992) filed by wine-merchants of the State of Punjab are being disposed of as common question of law and facts have arisen. In some of the cases respondent-State is represented and reply has already been filed while in some other cases notice is yet to be issued. Broad facts are given from writ petition No. 2796 of 1992.

(2.) The petitioners are holders of :L-14-A and L-2 licences issued for the year 1991-92 obtained by the petitioners in auction conducted by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The period of the licence is April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992 for which the vends have been granted to them. The District Magistrate on June 18, 1991 passed an order under Sec. 54 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for closure of the wine shops for the period June 20, 1991 to June 24, 1991 in pursuance of the Assembly Elections. Although elections were postponed yet the petitioners shop remained closed. another order was passed on Oct. 7, 1991, whereby the District Magistrate regulated the timings of the vends i.e. 'the vends would be opened at 10.00 a.m. and closed at 5.40 p.m.' Originally the vends were to open at 9.00 a.m. to close at 10.00 p.m. Subsequently on Feb. 10, 1992 the District Magistrate passed an order for closure of the vends for the period from Feb. 17, 1992 to Feb. 21, 1992 due to elections of the Parliament and Assembly. Copy of the order is Annexure P-1. The claim of the petitioners is that since the vends were ordered to be closed under the orders passed by the District Magistrate for a period of more than three days at a time, the petitioners were entitled to the concession of remission of licence fee proportionately for the aforesaid period of closure of the vends. Reference was made to some of the decisions of this Court in the writ petition.

(3.) On behalf of the State reply was filed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, inter alia alleging that the orders were passed by the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to close down the shops in public interest and preserve public peace under Sec. 54 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court in another case had already rejected the claim of the wine-merchants, copy of the order relied upon is Annexure R-1. Further reference was made to the rules framed under the act and contained in Annexure R-2 that if the liquor vends were closed under orders of the District Magistrate passed under Sec. 54 of the Act, no concession was to be granted to the wine-merchants. a replication was filed controverting the allegations. We have heard Shri Mohan Jain, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Gopal Krishan Chatrath, Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.