JAGWASAYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.205 of 1983, 625 and 626 of 1982.

(2.) The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 205 of 1983.

(3.) The petitioner was allotted a L-2 License at Shahbad for the period 1.4.1980 to 31.3.1981. A sample of Knight King whisky was taken from the vend on 8.12.1980. It is the case of the petitioner that he had come to Chandigarh on 26.12.1980 in connection with some personal work and on visiting the office of the Collector, he was informed that the sample of whisky, taken from his vend, had been found to be adulterated. The petitioner returned to Shahbad on the same day but was arrested by the police for being in possession of adulterated whisky. It is the petitioners' case that he had remained in custody till his release on bail by this Court in the month of January, 1981. It is the petitioners' case that he was served with a show cause notice, Annexure P1, dated 28.12.1980 while in jail. It was stipulated in the notice that he was required to show case within seven days as to why his licence be not cancelled under Section 36(c) of the Punjab Excise Act (1 of 1914) and the amount of security forfeited under Rule 37(36) of the Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970. The petitioner was also advised that in case he wished to appear in person or through his legal representative, he could do so and on his failure to appear, it would be presumed that he had nothing to say against the proposed action. The petitioner while in custody replied to the show cause notice, vide Annexure P2 dated 30.12.1980 and requested that the sample of whisky be got retested. The Collector-cum-Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Hqr.) Haryana, however, by his order, Annexure P3 dated 31.12.1980, after considering the reply to the show cause notice cancelled the L-2 licence of the petitioner and also forfeited the security as per rules. An appeal, Annexure P4, was thereafter filed before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana and amongst the various issues raised, it was argued that the petitioner had not been granted an opportunity of a personal hearing by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner as the order had been passed by him on 31.12.1980, which was within the period of seven days envisaged in the notice, Annexure P1. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, however, vide his order dated 16.1.1981, Annexure P5, dismissed the appeal holding that the period of seven days was the maximum period envisaged in the notice and as the reply filed by the petitioner had been received by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner wjthin seven days, the order dated 31.12.1980 was correct in law. A revision petition was thereafter filed before the Financial Commissioner, which too was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.1982, Annexure P6.