HEM RAJ Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein seeks quashing of notice comprised in Annexure P -7 as well as the impugned orders comprised in Annexures P -9 and P -10, besides a direction is sought for from this Court against the respondents inasmuch, as, the latter being directed to order for the petitioner being holder of Unit No. 23.

(2.) AS divulged by Annexure P -1 a license qua Unit No. 23 was issued by the respondents in favour of the petitioner. Under Unit No. 23, L -2 Shalaghat, L -14 Shalaghat, L -14 Palania, L -14 Madhuva fall. The petitioner under Annexure P -4 deposited a sum of Rs. 7,50,879/ - for obtaining renewal of license qua Shallaghat Unit No. 23 as initially issued in his favour as divulged by Annexure P -1. He continues to aver that even a no objection certificate as divulged by Annexure P -6 was issued in his favour by the competent authority. However, under Annexure P -7 the respondents were constrained to communicate/convey to the petitioner for the reasons comprised in it that they were precluded or deterred to renew the license as comprised in Annexure P -1, initially issued in favour of the petitioner qua Unit No. 23.

(3.) BOTH the submissions aforesaid are bereft of legal tenacity or sinew. The mere factum of the petitioner having deposited license fee before the authority concerned as divulged by Annexure P -4 does not perse bestow or invest in him a right to obtain renewal of hitherto Unit No. 23 especially when Unit No. 23 has faded into extinction on its alongwith units No. 20, 25, 27 and 44 having come to be realigned, reconstituted and regrouped, unless it was demonstrated that the re -alignment of units aforesaid alongwith Unit No. 23 qua which a liquor license was initially issued in favour of the petitioner under Annexure P -1 smacks of malafidies or is ultra vires the rules. Besides it was entailed upon the counsel for the petitioner to substantiate that such regrouping has been constituted or such regrouping/realigning is generated by exercise of extra constitutional power by the respondents or is prodded by whimsicality or caprice arising from no authority or power vesting in the authority concerned to create a new group by amalgamation or regrouping. In the aforesaid scenario the non -renewal of license qua Unit No. 23 in favour of the petitioner would be ridden with the vice of arbitrariness and concomitant illegality. However, an incisive perusal of the record demonstrates that the authority concerned is vested by empowerment contained in Rule 13 and 34 of the Himachal Pradesh Liquor License Rules, 1986 read with Conditions No. 1.2, 1.3 and 3.18 of the Excise Allotment/Renewal Announcements for the year 2014 -15 to carry out regrouping/realignment of liquor Units/Vends and concomitantly to amalgamate Units. In fact an un -circumscribed/unfettered power is vested in the Financial Commissioner to carry out regrouping of liquor units. The plenitude of powers vested in the Financial Commissioner to carry out realignment of liquor units and on such regrouping reconstitute and assign them a new unit number has been upheld in a decision reported in M/s Rishi Pal and Co. vs. State of H.P. and others, : 1998(5) SCC 333. Besides vires thereof has been upheld in a decision rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 473 of 2008 decided on 25.09.2008. In face thereof the act of the respondents to render extinct Unit No. 23 qua which a liquor license was initially issued in favour of the petitioner under Annexure P -1 by its tenable act of on its regrouping/realignment with other Units bearing No. 20, 25, 27 and 44 ascribe to it a new unit No. 45 cannot obviously bestow any right in the petitioner herein to on merger of Unit No. 23 with other Units aforesaid claim a vested or entrenched right merely on the anvil of his having deposited the revenue fees qua one of the Units forming a part of newly constituted Unit No. 45 for the latter renewal in his favour. Moreso, when the license initially issued under Annexure P -1 qua one of the Units forming part of newly constituted unit No. 45 has faded into extinction. In other words, when Unit No. 23 no longer exists or has faded into oblivion, no vested/subsisted rights endure in the petitioner to claim renewal of license qua a part of reconstituted unit number in his favour. He though does have a right to participate in the process for allotment or issuance of license qua newly constituted Unit No. 45 and in case he was interdicted or forbidden to participate in the process for allotment/issuance of license qua newly constituted Unit No. 45 on its coming into being on regrouping/realignment of units aforesaid then he could tenably agitate before this Court that such interdiction imposed upon him by executive fiat acquires the taint of bias and is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction for facilitating the cherished constitutional tenet of equality. However, when as apparent on an incisive rummaging of the record that the petitioner was advised by the respondents to file an application before the authority concerned, before 12.00 noon on 26.3.2014 for his being considered for issuance of license or his being allotted on completion of codal formalities newly constituted Unit No. 45, yet his having omitted to participate renders him ill -equipped to agitate that in the process undertaken by the respondents to allot newly constituted Unit No. 45 he has been denied an opportunity compatible with other bidders seeking allotment/issuance of license qua it, besides estops him from contending that the process initiated by the respondents for allotment of the newly constituted Unit No. 45 by omitting elicitation of his participation is ridden with arbitrariness.