UDAIPUR DISTILLERY CO LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, Udaipur Distillery Company Limited, dealing in liquor business within the State and out side the State has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of certiorari be issued against the impugned order passed by the Excise Commissioner, respondent No. 2, on 31. 8. 96 (Annex. 1) and the same may be quashed. It is also prayed to declare that the petitioner is entitled to waiver of interest under Section 30-AA of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short, `the Act') and also to declare that the respondents are not entitled either to impose interest or recover the same from the petitioner under Section 30-A of the Act.

(2.) ON 23. 9. 96, this petition was straight away admitted by this Court (Ouorum P. P. Naolekar, J.) and the notice was ordered to be issued. ON the same day, i. e. on 23. 9. 96, on stay petition also, this Court ordered to issue notice to the other side and till further orders the respondents were restrained from taking coercive action for recovery of the amount. ON 10. 10. 96, statement was made before this Court by learned counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- on or before 25. 10. 96 and further Rs. 15,00,000/- on or before 15. 11. 96 at first instance. ON that statement, the exparte stay granted earlier was modified by this Court on the condition that the petitioner will deposit the aforesaid amount, as stated earlier, failing which it was ordered to be vacated automatically. ON 20. 11. 96 statement was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by this Court on 10. 10. 96 was complied with by the petitioner and in all Rs. 30 lakhs were deposited. Therefore, the matter was adjourned from time to time due to sickness of the learned counsel Shri Vyas and for other reasons. However, today the matter was heard on 11. 3. 97 finally along with similar writ petition viz. , S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3048/96 Herbertsons Ltd. Unit Sona Distillieries, Alwar vs. State of Raj. etc.

(3.) ON merits, Mr. Joshi submitted that the impugned order at Annexure 1 is liable to be set aside as the same is in clear violation of Section 30a and 30aa of the Act. Mr. Vyas for the respondents, however, submitted that the impugned order at Annexure 1 does not suffer from any infirmity. The Excise Commissioner has passed a reasoned order, which is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the supervisiory powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. He sub- mitted that writ of certiorari cannot be issued in such cases where the decision of the authority is otherwise just and proper.