Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1636 - DELHI HIGH COURTJurisdiction - case of petitioner is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as the petitioners are administering the liquor policy of the State of Uttarakhand and, therefore, are not enterprises within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act - whether the petitioners are excluded from the scope of the term 'enterprise' as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. Section 2(h) of the Act? - Held that: - A plain reading of Section 2(h) of the Act indicates that an enterprise would also include a department of the Government, which is engaged in any activity relating to production, storage, supply, distribution, acquisition or control of articles or goods. Indisputably, the petitioners were charged with the function of supply and distribution of IMFL (the manner in which they conducted such business is the subject matter of information provided by respondent no. 2). The activity carried on by the petitioners is clearly not relatable to any sovereign function of the State of Uttarakhand and, therefore, the petitioners are not excluded from the ambit of Section 2(h) of the Act - distribution of liquor cannot by stretch be considered as one of the activities falling within the above exclusionary provision - the contention that the petitioners are not enterprises within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act is unmerited and is rejected as such. Merely because multiple remedies arise from a set of facts or multiple consequences arise from the same set of facts does not prevent recourse to more than one proceedings. Unless the proceedings are mutually destructive - which in this case they are not - recourse to multiple proceedings on the same set of facts is not barred. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|