WPMS/345/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 410 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                           AT NAINITAL
        ON THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                                BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

          Writ Petition (M/S) No. 345 of 2022
BETWEEN:
Manish Sehgal                                                  ...Petitioner
        (By Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate)

AND:

State of Uttarakhand and another                             ...Respondents
        (By Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State)


                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner was granted license for retail sale of country-made liquor at Majra, I.S.B.T, Dehradun for the financial year 2021-22. District Magistrate, Dehradun passed an order on 30.11.2021 directing the petitioner to shift his shop to the proper place, for which license was granted to him.

2. Petitioner challenged the order passed by District Magistrate before Excise Commissioner. Excise Commissioner has dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 01.02.2022.

3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari the quashing the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by District Magistrate Dehradun (contained as Annexure no. 5 to this petition). and 01.02.2022 passed by the Commissioner Excise be stayed during the pendency of revision before the revisional

authority (contained as annexure no. 7 to this petition).

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the revisional authority u/s 11(2) of the UP Excise Act (respondent no.

1) to decide the revision dated 07.02.2022 preferred against the order dated 01.02.2022 as expeditiously as possible."

4. Perusal of the order passed by District Magistrate on 30.11.2021 indicates that in place of Majra, I.S.B.T. for which petitioner was granted license, he had opened the shop at Niranjanpur, therefore, he was directed by District Magistrate to shift his shop to its proper place.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has approached Revisional Authority under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, therefore, the Revisional Authority be directed to decide petitioner's revision, as early as possible.

6. Learned Brief Holder, however, points out that despite the order passed by District Magistrate, petitioner has not shifted his shop to the place for which he was granted license and petitioner is running the shop from some other place, as indicated by District Magistrate in his order. Such state of affairs cannot be permitted to exist in a civilized society.

7. Orders passed by the Competent Authorities are meant to be followed and violation of such orders will lead to lawlessness. This Court hopes and expects that appropriate corrective steps will be taken by the concerned authorities at the earliest.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Revisional Authority to decide petitioner's revision petition, as early as possible, but not later than ten days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Shubham