PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated November 12, 2007 vide which the writ petition filed by present respondent No. 5 Mohan Singh was allowed and the Excise and Taxation department was directed to make the allotment in his favour.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 5 as petitioner filed a petition before this Court alleging that liquor vend for Unit No. 22 was allotted in pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee and it was alleged that appellant (respondent No. 5 Pradeep Kumar before this Court) had obtained the liquor vend No. 22 fraudulently. It was alleged that the applications were invited by respondents No. 1 to 4 for allotment of liquor vends and the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 applied for allotment of liquor vend. Respondents No. 1 to 4 on the basis of the applications received allotted Unit No. 22 in favour of respondent No. 5. The petitioner alleged that at the time of grant in favour of respondent No. 5, the petitioner raised an objection regarding genuineness of signatures of respondent No. 5 on application form and on special Power of Attorney executed by him. Respondents No. 1 to 4 after receiving objections enquired into the matter and after scrutinizing it was found that respondent No. 5 liquor contractor participated through alleged authorized representative at the time of allotment of liquor vend. On the basis of objections raised, respondents No. 2 to 4 prima facie found that there is a difference in the signatures in the application form and Power of Attorney allegedly issued by respondent No. 5 in favour of his authorized representative. Respondent No. 5 was called to the office of respondent No. 4 to enquire into these objections and it was decided to send the said documents purported to be signed by respondent No. 5 as well as admitted signatures of respondent No. 5 to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for submitting its report. Respondent No. 2 on 30.3.2007 informed respondent No. 3 that the committee has confirmed that there is a difference in the signatures and accordingly, the approval in favour of respondent No. 5 was kept pending till the report of Government Examiner of Questioned Documents is received. It was also decided that the liquor vend of Unit No. 22 shall be operated through M/s Jaswant Rai and Company for a period from 1.4.2007 to 30.4.2007. The petitioner again made a representation that allotment of Unit No. 22 to the licensee of previous year, namely, Jaswant Rai was contrary to the rules and in case pending receipt of the expert report, the allotment was to be made, it should have been made in favour of petitioner being No. 2 allottee. Petitioner Mohan Singh filed a writ petition and respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.4.2007 once again decided to allot the said vend in favour of respondent No. 5 subject to receipt of report of expert. The petitioner alleged that he has learnt now that the report of the expert has been received that the signatures on the application form and Power of Attorney executed by respondent No. 5 do not tally with the admitted signatures of respondents No. 5 and thus, respondents No. 1 to 4 were under a duty to reject the allotment and not to grant licence in favour of respondent No. 5 but no action has been taken against respondent No. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the act of respondents No. 1 to 4 and had challenged their order dated 21.4.2007 allowing respondent No. 5 to run the liquor vend in question and the action of respondents No. 1 to 4 by not taking any action after receipt of the report of the expert was alleged to be wrong and illegal. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, original respondent No. 5 has filed the present Letter Patent Appeal.