DEEPAK CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for all the parties stated that the main issues in these writ petitions are the same. We, therefore, dispose of the above writ petitions by this common order and judgment. We will for convenience refer to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No.24882 of 2014.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the communications dated 27.03.2014, 30.06.2014 and 18.09.2014 issued by respondent No.5 -Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).

(3.) THE Department of Excise and Taxation of the State of Haryana -respondent No.1 had been issuing policies for each financial year for the issuance of licences for wholesale and retail sale of country liquor and Indian made foreign liquor under the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as applicable to the State of Haryana and the Rules framed therein. The policy had made provisions for one Permit Kaksh (Ahata) i.e. an authorized place of drinking with retail vend per retail outlet of liquor in urban areas and along and near the borders of other States. The excise policy from year to year contained such provisions. The relevant provisions of the Excise Policy for the year 2013 -14 are as under: -