SATYAVEER Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.06.2015 passed by the Excise Commissioner, suspending the composite licence for sale of the country liquor and Indian made foreign liquor at shop Nos. 1 and 3, situated in the Municipal Limit of Behror, for a period of one month, exercising powers under Section 70 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

(2.) THE petitioner was granted the composite licence by draw of lottery for Behror area for the year 2014 -2015 by the District Excise Officer on 01.04.2014 (Annexure -1) for three shops known as shop Nos. 1, 2 and 3, situated in the municipal area of Behror. It appears that on the random checking conducted by the Excise Department for the shops of the petitioner on 15.12.2014, the Excise Inspector, Behror Circle, Behror while inspecting the shop had picked up the samples of Imperial Blue Whiskey and Royal Stage Whiskey from the shop Nos. 1 and 3 of the petitioner, and had sent to the Excise Laboratory at Udaipur for testing. Since as per the report of the Excise Laboratory, there was some variation found in the strength of Imperial Blue Whiskey picked up from the shop No. 1 and in the sample of Royal Stage Whiskey picked up from the shop No. 3, the Excise Department had registered two cases bearing F.I.R. No. BLC case 49/24.2.15 for Imperial Blue Whiskey and F.I.R. No. BLC case 50/24.2.15 for Royal Stage Whiskey. It further appears that thereafter a notice was sought to be issued by the Excise Department on 29.05.2015 (Annexure -3), calling upon the petitioner as to why his licence should not be cancelled in view of the registration of cases under Section 58(c) of the said Act. The petitioner submitted two separate replies on 17.06.2015 (Annexures 4 & 5) respectively to the Excise Commissioner praying to drop the proceedings, registered against him under Section 58(c) of the said Act. The Excise Commissioner i.e. the respondent No. 2 vide the impugned order 17.06.2015 suspended the licence of the petitioner for one month in lieu of compounding of the offences registered against the petitioner, exercising powers under Section 70 of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. R.B. Mathur for the respondents has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition by submitting that alternative remedy of filing the Revision under the said Act before the Rajasthan Tax Board being available to the petitioner, this petition is not maintainable. He also submitted that the petitioner having committed breach of the conditions of licence, his licence was liable to be cancelled or suspended, and the respondent No. 2 considering the facts of the case has rightly suspended the licence for one month. However, learned senior counsel Mr. A.K. Bhandari for the petitioner submitted that the licence of the petitioner having been suspended only for one month and the Tax Board being not available at the time of fling of the petition and even otherwise the Tax Board would hear the matter after 15 days only, the very purpose of fling the revision petition would have frustrated. He also submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 being without jurisdiction, the existence of alternative remedy would not be bar to filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that the petitioner had not committed any breach of condition of the licence and no irregularity as alleged was committed by him and even otherwise the petitioner having urged to compound the offences registered against him, the respondent No. 2 could not have suspended the licence while exercising powers under Section 70 of the said Act.