SUBASH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been laid to the order dated 20.2.2014, Annexure P.6 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for adjustment of the amount of security towards the licence fee has been rejected.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The State of Hayana issued Excise policy for the years 2013 -14 and 2014 -15, Annexure P.1. The petitioner applied for and was allotted licences, Annexure P.2 for retail outlet of country liquor (L -14A) bearing Group Nos. 4 and 22 in the District of Hisar commencing from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2015. One Society namely Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh filed a Public Interest Litigation in this court bearing CWP No. 25777 of 2012 challenging allotment of liquor vend sites along the National Highways being in direct contravention of the provisions of the Control of National Highway (Lands and Traffic) Act, 2002. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State of Haryana issued for the first time Excise policy for two years i.e. 2013 -14 and 2014 -15. Prior to the issuance of the said policy, the petitioner in the PIL moved interim application for staying the process of issuance of the policy. Vide order dated 17.12.2013, Annexure P.3 passed by this Court in the above mentioned writ petition, it was made clear that the Excise Policy for two years issued by the State of Haryana would only be applicable for one financial year i.e. from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014. In terms of the policy Annexure P1, the petitioner being licencee had deposited security deposit of 21% of the licence fee for the year 2013 -14 and the said deposit was to be adjusted in the last two installments for the year 2014 -15. The licencee had to get the licence renewed for the year 2014 -15 i.e. the second year of the current policy between 15.2.2014 to 28.2.2014 and in case of failure, his security deposit of 21% was liable to be forfeited and the vends were to be reallotted. The petitioner was required to pay the installments of the licence fee by 20th of every month and in case of failure, interest at the rate of 1.5% per month was to be levied against the defaulter. The petitioner approached the respondents and submitted representation dated 2.1.2014, Annexure P.4 praying that the security deposit of 21% of the licence fee be adjusted in the two installments due in the months of February and March 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 934 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 20.1.2014, Annexure P.5 with a direction to respondent No. 2 to take decision on the representation by passing a speaking order. Vide impugned order dated 20.2.2014, Annexure P.6, respondent No. 2 rejected the representation. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) THE aforesaid position is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.