Uttarakhand High Court
Prakash Chandra Chaurakoti vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3161 of 2022
Prakash Chandra Chaurakoti ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ... Respondents
And
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3162 of 2022
Prem Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ... Respondents
And
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3176 of 2022
Amar Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ... Respondents
Advocate: Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate along with Mr. Vansh Sharma,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, Addl. CSC, for the State
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The United Provinces Excise Act of 1910, grants
the rule making powers to the State, under Section 40
of the Act, which would be governing the terms and
conditions of license granted to the various license
holders which includes the petitioners, for running the
liquor shops, as allotted to them respectively, under
the terms of the Act of 1910 itself.
2. For the Financial Year 2020-21, it is admitted by
the petitioner, that the allotment which has been made
with regards to the respective shop which was allotted
to him, was under the terms of the Policy of 2020-21,
which was promulgated by the State of Uttarakhand on
30.01.2021 by issuing a Gazette Notification No.
62/XIII-1/2021/04(01)/2021, whereby as per the
Policy, which was promulgated by the State, it had
provided under clause 35, it provided with to deal with
the situation, to the licence holders, where they have
been unable operate their business on account of force
majeure or because of any of impediments to the terms
and conditions for the redressal of their grievances,
they have been provided with the platform i.e. the
Committee constituted under clause 35 of the said
policy. Clause 35 of the policy is extracted hereunder:-
35. िव�ीय वष� के म� म� आबकारी अनु�ापनों के संचालन म� यिद कोई
सम�ा आती है, िजसकी �व�ा िव�ीय वष� म� प्र�ािपत िनयमावली म�
न दी गयी हो, तो काय� के सुचा� �प से स�ादन हेतु मु� सिचव
उ�राख� सरकार की अ��ता म� एक सिमित का गठन िकया जाता है,
िजसम� प्रमुख सिचव / सिचव िव� एवं प्रमुख सिचव / सिचव �ाय, सद�
तथा प्रमुख सिचव / सिचव आबकारी सद� सिचव होंगे। उ� सिमित
�ारा की गयी सं�ुित पर अ��म िनण�य हेतु प्रकरण मा० आबकारी मंत्री
जी के मा�म से मा0 मु�मंत्री जी को प्र�ुत िकया जायेगा।
3. In the case at hand, the petitioner in WPMS No.
3161 of 2021, was allotted foreign liquor shop at
Danya District Almora, w.e.f. 23.01.2021 till
31.03.2021. The contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner had been, that on account of the
embargos imposed due to COVID-19 situation, he has
not been able to deposit the minimum monthly
guarantee deposit amount, as settled to be paid under
the terms of the license granted to him, to operate the
liquor shop and as such, due to the default committed,
an amount of refund has been sought by him to be
made by seeking a writ of mandamus, contending
thereof, that an appropriate directions may be issued to
the respondents to return the amount, as prayed for by
him in the relief clause of the writ petition.
4. In WPMS No. 3162 of 2022, its almost the
similar issue, which has been put to challenge by the
petitioner, on the similar ground, in relation to the shop
allotted to the petitioner at Deghat, District Almora, for
the period from 23.01.2021 to 31.03.2021 and in this
case too, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus
for refund of the amount of Rs. 6,37,182/- for the
Financial Year 2020-21, which he has claimed on
account of not being able to operate the business due
to COVID-19 restrictions, as imposed by the
Notification issued by the Government of India.
5. In WPMS No. 3176 of 2022, the petitioner has
been allotted with a liquor shop licence to operate the
shop situated at Masi, district Almora, for the period
from 30.01.2021 to 31.03.2021 and consequently, in
this writ petition too, a writ of mandamus has been
sought, directing the respondents to refund the
amount, which was deposited by the petitioner, and
which remained unutilized on account of the impact of
COVID-19 restrictions, which has been assessed by the
petitioner as to be Rs. 1,23,992/- along with interest
payable on it @ 18% p.a.
6. The refund of an amount, which has been sought
in these writ petitions, by the petitioner in relation to
the amount already deposited, of which the petitioner
could not avail the benefit, due to the restrictions
imposed by the Government of India, due to COVID-19
situation, which has been sought to be refunded by
invoking a writ jurisdiction by way of seeking a writ of
mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
7. In all these writ petitions, the grant of license to
the petitioners are governed by the provisions of the
Act of 1910, and the Rules framed thereunder by the
State, while exercising its power under Section 40 of
the Act. Accordingly, in exercise of its powers, the
State Government has issued a Policy on 30.01.2021,
and such type of contingencies and unforeseen
eventualities are required to be dealt with as per clause
35 of the said Policy, which has been extracted
hereinabove.
8. In that eventuality, the writ petitions are being
disposed of with a direction for the petitioner in all the
three writ petitions, to approach the Committee, which
has been constituted under clause 35 of the Policy, for
seeking redressal of their grievances for refund of the
amount, as allegedly deposited by the petitioner under
the terms of the licence, which had been issued in their
favour.
9. If the petitioners do so within a period of two
weeks from today, the Committee thus constituted, will
take a decision on the same within a period of two
months thereafter and while doing so, the Committee
thus constituted under Clause 35 of the said Policy,
would deal with all the relevant records.
10. Subject to the aforesaid exception, the writ
petitions stand disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the order
sheet of the connected writ petitions.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
20.02.2023
Mahinder/
