RAJINDER KUMAR AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order 15 writ petitions (Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16191, 16798, 17025, 18684, 18901 of 1991, 85 to 88, 199, 641, 801 and 2830 of 1992) are being disposed of as the question of law involving therein is common. Broad facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 16191 of 1991.

(2.) The petitioner is a liquor vendee of L-2 and L-14A licences for the year April 1991 to March 1992. The petitioner secured vends in an auction conducted by the authorities under the Excise Act as applicable in Haryana. Under orders passed by the District Magistrate the liquor vends were closed for two days i.e. on October 26 and 27, 1991. The petitioner was thus unable to do business of selling liquor on these two days and thus he suffered loss. He claimed remission of the licence fee proportionately on that account. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents, inter alia, alleging that orders for closure of the vends was made by the District Magistrate under section 54 of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') as applicable in Haryana and no compensation can be allowed to the petitioner on that account.

(3.) We have given hearing to the counsel for the parties Section 54 of the Act authorises the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to order closure of vends for the preservation of the public peace. Paragraph 3.19 as contained in Punjab Excise Manual Volume III, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners, reads as under :