WPMS/613/2015
2021 Latest Caselaw 1471 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL
        ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
                         BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 613 of 2015

BETWEEN:

Sri Jeetpal Singh.                           ....Petitioner
     (By Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate)

AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others.            ...Respondents
     (By Mr. M.C. Pande, Additional Advocate General for the
     State of Uttarakhand)


                      JUDGMENT

Petitioner was granted license for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in District Rudraprayag in the year 2014. According to him, his shop remained closed from last week of July, 2014 to November, 2014 on account of agitation by residents of the locality where petitioner's shop was shifted and, thereafter, on account of oral sealing order passed by Collector, Rudraprayag. The sealing order was subsequently set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2014 passed in WPMS No. 2186 of 2014, however, petitioner was made to deposit Monthly Minimum Guarantee Duty for the aforesaid period also.

2. According to the petitioner, since he could not run the shop during aforesaid period due to agitation by the residents of the locality where he was asked to shift his shop, therefore, he had no liability

to pay Monthly Minimum Guarantee Duty and amount deposited by him as duty deserves to be refunded.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that, under the terms & conditions of the license, petitioner is liable to pay Monthly Minimum Guarantee Duty, whether he made retail sale of Foreign Liquor or not.

4. Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to Collector, Rudraprayag, seeking refund of Monthly Minimum Guarantee Duty, within two weeks from today. If such representation is made within stipulated period, the Collector shall consider the same and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan