RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Excise and Taxation Department issued an Excise Policy and arrangements for the year 2007-2008. Under this Policy individual applications were invited for allotment of retail vends. The respondent No.2 issued public notice in terms of the Excise Policy on 22.2.2007 inviting applications for allotment of retail sale license of country liquor and Indian made foreign liquor. As per this scheme and the notice of allotment, the allotment was to be made by draw of lots in case there were more than one application for a particular vend/unit. The draw of lot was to be conducted by a Committee consisting of the Deputy Commissioner of the District, representative of the Excise and Taxation Department Himachal Pradesh, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the respective Zone and the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner/Excise and Taxation Officer Incharge of the Districts. As per the notice & the terms and conditions it was not necessary for the applicant to be present on the date when the lots were drawn. However, the successful allottee was required to deposit 50% of the basic license fee on the day of draw of lots and 50% within 7 days thereafter or 31st March, 2007 whichever was earlier.

(2.) THE petitioner herein and respondents 5&6 alongwith 6 other persons had applied for Unit 7/2 for the vend at Nerwa, Gumma and Jhikhipul in Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. Draw of lots were held at Hotel Peter hoff, shimla on 14th March, 2007 under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondent No.6 Dhirendera Singh who is the brother of respondent No.5 Shailendera Singh impersonated as Shailendera Singh and tried to deposit the amount due. On this the petitioner raised an objection and the Deputy Commissioner found that person who had stood up was not Shailendera Singh and did not have any authority or attorney to represent Shailendera Singh. Thereafter, the allotment in favour of Shailendera Singh was cancelled and lot was allotted in favour of the petitioner whose name was the next in the draw of lots and the petitioner also deposited the fees. The petitioner also alleged that thereafter he hired a shop, employed salesmen and Manager and applied to the respondents-State for grant of permits to lift the liquor. However, to his shock and surprise the permit to lift liquor was not granted by the Excise and Taxation Inspector, Chopal on the ground that the respondent No.2 Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh had verbally directed that the petitioner should not be allowed to lift the liquor till 2 p.m. on 2nd April, 2007. According to the petitioner he immediately rushed to Shimla and met respondent No.2 personally on 2.4.2007 and submitted a representation Annexure P-6 but respondent No.2 told him that he had decided to allot the Unit to respondent No.5.