MANGILAL Vs. DISTRICT EXCISE OFFICER AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by petitioner Mangilal to challenge the order of the District Excise Officer, Ajmer dated 19th December, 1969, suspending the petitioner's license granted to him under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows:

(3.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the allegations of mala fide intention of the respondent have been vehemently opposed by the respondents. It is averred in their reply that the action of the petitioner of selling adulterated liquor and that too in loose bottles was against the terms of the license, specially conditions Nos. 6, 15, 19 and 24 which entailed the cancellation of the petitioner's license. It is further averred that the Inspector who had gone for the checking of the shop detected by means of hydrometer as many as 127 bottles of liquor of much below the prescribed strength and these bottles were seized in the presence of the authorised salesman of the petitioner and other witnesses who had put their signatures on the seizure memo which was prepared on the spot. This seizure of 127 bottles in the presence of the authorised salesman, according to the respondent, was a sufficient notice to the petitioner of the contravention of the provisions of the Act, the rules and the conditions of the license as detected by the Inspector. It is also pleaded that after the order of suspension was issued, another notice to show cause was why his license may not be cancelled was served on the petitioner and the enquiry for the cancellation of the license is in progress and if the petitioner is found guilty of committing any breach of the conditions of his license, the Department will be perfectly justified to take further steps to cancel the license and also to take criminal proceedings against the petitioner for contravening the provisions of the Act. It is contended that the Department is awaiting the report from the Chemical Examiner who is not available at present because of the retirement of the Chemical Analyst Mr. Bhargava and therefore delay is caused in taking further action against the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is prayed by the respondents that the writ petition be dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.