SANDYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eleven writ petitions relate to licences for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), popularly termed as JKEL-2 license, and I wish to commence this judgment recording my conviction about the universal truth that gross loss of unimaginable magnitude in intoxicants overweighs the little benefits in them, and that there cannot be any good in something that covers minds, induces ruin in the biological beings and economy of a people, and reduces most of the consumers to abject penury.

(2.) In four of these petitions - OWP Nos. 822/2005, 826/2005, 827/2005 & 835/2005 -the petitioners challenge communications dtd. 14/12/2005, styled as 'notice for cancellation of temporary licence' addressed to them by the Excise Commissioner; in the other four writ petitions - OWP Nos. 802/2005, 817/2005, 972/2006 and 137/2010 -mostly, the very same petitioners seek, inter alia, regularisation of the temporary licenses issued in their favour by the competent authority by draw of lots after they were subjected to the procedure formulated by the respondents; in writ petition, OWP No. 326/2006, the petitioner has challenged Government order No. 668-STS of 2005, dtd. 30/12/2005 insofar as the same directs opening of sub-vends at Palma Mendhar, Gujroo, Nagrota and, at the same time, has raised his grievance against grant of licenses in favour of the private respondents 3 to 5 therein for sale of liquor as a sub-vendees and prayed or issue of command to the respondents to allot the sub-vends in his favour; in OWP No. 536/2005, the petitioner therein is aggrieved of an order issued by Excise Commissioner debarring the petitioner - a women of 45 years of age - from obtaining the off-license for retail sale of IMFL; in OWP No. 524/2005, the petitioner is aggrieved of selection of respondents 3 for allotment of license in his favour and of placement of respondent No. 4 in the waitlist. In all these petitions, the petitioners have also prayed for other and/or consequential reliefs.

(3.) I heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.