KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to act in accordance with the excise policy for the year 2009-2010. The petitioner has pointed out that there are two violations of the excise policy which have been incorporated in Item Nos. 2.8 and 2.10. According to the grievance made by the petitioner the siting parameter of the vends and subC. W.P. No. 13762 of 2009

(2.) vends have been given in the excise policy and the distance between a vend or sub-vend has to be 2.5 kilometers. Referring to the site plan (Annexure P-5) it has been argued that the distance between the L-2 vend dealing with Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for brevity, 'IMFL') allotted to the petitioner, is only 600 metres from the sub-vend of respondent No. 3, who has been allotted a L-14A vend dealing with Country Made Liquor (for brevity, 'CL'). The other grievance made by the petitioner is that the condition mentioned in Item No. 2.10 of the excise policy has also been violated, inasmuch as, respondent No. 3, who is holding L-14A vend for sale of 'CL', has been selling Beer, which is covered by 'IMFL'. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been allotted L- 2 licence which deals with sale of 'IMFL' and the licence issued to respondent No. 3 is entirely different, namely, L-14A, which deals with 'CL'. The siting parameters incorporated in Item No. 2.8 of the excise policy for a vend and sub-vend would apply to the vend/subvend of the same kind of licence and it cannot be applied inter-vends of different licences dealing with different liquor. Permitting such a comparison would result into treating un-equals equally. This is the precise stand taken by the respondent State in its written statement in para No. 2 of the preliminary submissions and para No. 8 of the reply on merits, which has also been adopted by respondent No. 3. In so far as the grievance emerging from Item No. 2.10 of the excise policy that respondent No. 3 has been selling Beer, there is categorical denial by the respondents in para 6 of the written statement. It has been vehemently denied that respondent No. 3 is permitted to sell C.W.P. No. 13762 of 2009 Beer.

(3.) To make sure compliance of the excise policy and other provisions, the Excise Inspectors have been appointed by the department circle wise. It has been further clarified that on checking no such violation was found on sub-vend of village Sobhapur, which has been allotted to respondent No. 3. We find no illegality in the action taken by the respondents or any violation of Item Nos. 2.8 and 2.10 of the excise policy. The petition is without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.