Allahabad High Court
Radheyshyam Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Excise Deptt. ... on 25 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17055
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5074 of 2024
Petitioner :- Radheyshyam Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Excise Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Singh,Anupama Bhadauria
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the licensing authority, order dated 06.01.2023 passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner as well as the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in revision filed by the petitioner. The appeal and revision were dismissed.
3. The impugned order came to be passed by the licensing authority against the petitioner on the ground that an FIR was lodged against an employee of the petitioner being Case Crime No.180 of 2022, under Section 60/63 of Excise Act.
4. In terms of the allegation, it was alleged that the said employee was arrested with illicit liquor. Based upon the FIR, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the license granted to the petitioner for operating a country made liquor shop. The sole allegation and the reasoning as reflected in the cancellation order is that the employee of the petitioner was apprehended with country made liquor. In terms of the said order, the distance between the liquor shop run by the petitioner and the place where the employee was apprehended is about 1 km.
5. In the light of the said, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly no liquor was recovered either from the petitioner or his wife or his servant in the shop allotted to the petitioner and thus, the recovery of liquor at a spot which is admittedly 1 km away, cannot lead to cancellation of the liquor shop. It is argued that the order passed against the petitioner is contrary to mandate of Section 7 and 34 of U.P. Excise Act as well as Rule 21(d) of the Rules applicable to the country made liquor rules.
6. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Rai v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ - C No.9330 of 2016 decided on 13.10.2022.
7. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon the counter affidavit, argues that the employee of the petitioner was apprehended with the country made liquor for which proceedings have been initiated under Section 60/63 of U.P. Excise Act. He argues that in terms of the prescriptions contained, it is admitted that any amount of liquor unauthorizedly found in the possession of the licensee, his wife or his employee shall be deemed to be in possession of the licensee and thus, the license has been rightly cancelled under Section 7 & 34 of the U.P. Excise Act. He, thus, argues that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically argues that it has been specifically pleaded in the writ petition that the alleged recoveries were not in the shop which the petitioner was a licensee and which facts have not been denied in the counter affidavit.
9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the issue with regard to the recovery of anything in the licensed premises which entails the cancellation of a license was considered by this Court extensively in the case of Ramesh Chandra Rai (supra). The facts of the said case and the law as explained, specifically in Para 17, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also.
10. Thus, following the said judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra Rai (supra), the impugned orders dated 01.08.2022, 06.01.2023 & 05.03.2024 cannot be sustained and are quashed.
11. The security amount and license fee which were confiscated by means of the impugned order shall be refunded to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 25.3.2025
nishant
