PANKAJ KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for quashing the decision as contained in Memo no. 693 dated 29.03.2019 (Annexure-5) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder his application for allotment of liquor shop has mechanically been cancelled which is contrary to the rule as contained in order dated 25.12.2018.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner, as has been pleaded in the writ petition is that the State Government has notified a rule for settlement of liquor shop on 25.12.2018 by which on-line application was called for, the petitioner has applied for the same on 28.02.2019 with his co-applicant one Manvendra Nath Jha and submitted all such documents fulfilling the eligibility criteria. He has also submitted Permanent Account Number in the name of Narmada Construction, the petitioner's firm. The petitioner has been declared successful through lottery being Group No. 31 on 05.03.2019, a sum of Rs. 8,51,600/- which was 5% deducted from the petitioner's account through electronic process, prior to that he has also deposited a sum of Rs. 8,42,000/- as per the order of the Superintendent of Excise, Chaibasa but instead of the fact that he is fulfilling all the criteria and in the process of selection, has been declared to be successful but he has been communicated with the impugned order passed on 29.03.2019 that since the application has been submitted in the name of firm and therefore, the said application is decided to be cancelled which is challenged in this writ petition mainly on the ground that there is no bar in making application through the firm. Even if there is bar, the co-applicant is one Pankaj Kumar Jha, and therefore, the criteria as laid down under the rule as notified in the notification dated 25.12.2018 pertaining to the definition of applicant, the petitioner is qualified to be considered.

(3.) The further ground has been urged that after being found to be successful in the lottery, cancellation of candidature of the petitioner is absolutely illegal and improper since there is no defect in the said application which ought to have been rejected at the threshold.