Institute Of Chartered Acc. vs Ashok Kumar Tyagi &Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4766 Del

Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 4766 Del
Judgement Date : 23 November, 2009

Delhi High Court

Institute Of Chartered Acc. vs Ashok Kumar Tyagi &Ors. on 23 November, 2009

Author: Pradeep Nandrajog

#R-28

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                         Date of Decision 23rd November, 2009

+                     LPA NO. 481/2003

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACC.                    ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr.V.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate with
                            Mr. Rakesh Agarwal & Mr.Pulkit
                            Aggarwal, Advocates

             versus
ASHOK KUMAR TYAGI &ORS.                  ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr.Darpan Wadhwa &
                           Ms.Sheena Iype,Advocates for R-4

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?        No
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited obtained a

licence from the Excise Commissioner to sell, on retail, liquor.

One Ashok Kumar Tyagi, the writ petitioner, entered into an

agreement with the said Corporation and offered his premises

where from liquor could be sold. A contractual document was

drawn up containing the terms of revenue sharing between

Mr.Ashok Kumar Tyagi and Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation

Limited. In a nutshell, Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi was to get 12½ %

of the gross profit in respect of the sale of liquor from his

premises.

2. A hue and cry was raised in the press. The reason for the

hue and cry was that the premises in question was close to the

office of the appellant. As per the appellant, the grant of the

licence for vending alcohol violated Rule 33(1A) of the Delhi

Liquor Licence Rules.

3. The Lokayukta, Government of NCT of Delhi, took

cognizance of what had happened and passed an order requiring

the authorities to explain as to under what circumstances the

liquor vend was being permitted to be run from the premises in

question. Further order was passed commenting adversely on the

grant of the licence.

4. Based on the orders passed by the Lokayukta, the

Commissioner Excise i.e. the Authority Competent to grant the

licence passed an order on 27.09.2002 cancelling the licence.

5. Mr.Ashok Kumar Tyagi filed a writ petition praying that the

order dated 27.09.2002 be quashed. He challenged the

jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to inquire into the issue.

6. Opposing the writ petition, the appellant questioned the

locus standi of Mr.Ashok Kumar Tyagi, urging that the licence not

being issued in his name by the Commissioner Excise, the mere

fact that Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited had

entered into an agreement with him to sell liquor from his

premises, gave no right to Mr.Ashok Kumar Tyagi to question the

order dated 27.09.2002.

7. On the issue of locus standi of Mr.Ashok Kumar Tyagi to

maintain the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has held as

under:-

'Having said so, still insofar as present writ petition is concerned, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is clear from the facts narrated above that licence to open L-2 vend was granted by the Commissioner of Excise to Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd./Respondent No.4. It is the licence in their favour which has been cancelled. Respondent No.4 had taken premises of the petitioner on rent for which Rent Agreement was executed. No doubt as per the terms of the said Agreement the petitioner was entitled to charge 12½% of the gross profit as rent compensation from Respondent No.4. However, fact remains that the licence was not in favour of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition challenging the said cancellation. It was for Respondent No.4 to challenge the cancellation of the licence.'

8. But immediately, thereafter, the learned Single Judge

proceeded to pass the following directions:-

'However, although it is held that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition but as the findings at the same time are that the proceedings initiated and orders passed by the Lokayukta are without jurisdiction, and as impugned order dated 27.9.2002 passed by the Respondent No.3 cancelling the licence is based on the order/recommendation of Lokayukta, it would be open for the Respondent No.3 to reconsider the matter without being influenced by the order passed by the Lokayukta. On its own assessment the Respondent No.3 should form an opinion as to whether it was not proper to have the L-2 vend at the aforesaid location keeping in view relevant provisions of law including Rule 33(1A) and Rule 33(B). He would also follow the prescribed procedure while taking such decision including observance of the principles of natural justice. Such a consideration be made and decision taken within a period of six weeks from today."

9. It is urged in the appeal that having held that Mr.Ashok

Kumar Tyagi did not have any locus standi to maintain the writ

petition, the same required to be dismissed and thus further

directions issued by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set

aside.

10. Indeed, once a Court holds that the writ petitioner has no

locus standi to maintain an action, back handed relief cannot be

granted. If a petition is not maintainable on account of the

petitioner having no locus standi to maintain the petition, the

question of granting any relief in the writ petition does not arise.

11. Thus, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge as

noted in Para 9 above are hereby set aside.