Bhim Chandra Ramola vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1391 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.1281 of 2023
Bhim Chandra Ramola                                    ....Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

recovery citation.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The petitioner runs a liquor shop. He was given

liquor license from the year 2021-22 and 2022-23. He did not

pay the Minimum Monthly Guarantee Deposit. Hence,

recovery was made.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner had deposited the Minimum Monthly

Guarantee Deposit for subsequent months, but the amount is

not being adjusted.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the

petitioner has remedy under Section 11 of the U.P Excise Act,

1910 ("the Act").

6. It is a case of recovery of Minimum Monthly

Guarantee Deposits from the petitioner, who was issued

liquor license for two consecutive years. If the petitioner is

aggrieved by any order passed by the Collector or any other

Excise Officer, he may very well challenge it under Section 11

of the Act. For the reliefs, as claimed, the writ petition should

not be entertained. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be

dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.05.2023 Ravi Bisht