TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise year 1979-80 was renewed in the name of fifth respondent alone. On May 24, 1980, the license in favour of fifth respondent was cancelled and a temporary license was issued to One R.S. Tiwari. Fifth respondent complained against the same and took several proceedings in that behalf. Ultimately, he filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court [Writ Petition (C) No. 15434 of 1981] which was allowed on August 29, 1986. Pursuant to the said order, the license in favour of the fifth respondent was renewed and continued to be renewed till and including the excise year 1991-92. For the excise year 1992-93, the fifth respondent applied for renewal in the usual course. Thereon, a query was raised by the District Excise Officer as to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to the grant and the subsequent litigation concerning the said license found that litigation concerning the said license and found that the cancellation of fifth respondent s license by the District Excise Officer by his order dated July 3, 1993 was incompetent in law and not warranted on facts. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of the District Magistrate which was dismissed by the Additional Excise Commissioner. A revision filed before the Government was also dismissed, whereupon he approached the Allahabad High Court by way of a Writ Petition (C) No. 707 of 1995. Writ Petition (C) No. 707 of 1985 has been dismissed by the High Court under the order impugned herein. The reasoning of the High Court is : once it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all, hence there is no question of cancelling his license. Once, it is held that there was no cancellation of fifth respondent s license, the reasoning of the High Court that grant of license to the appellant - though described as permanent - must be deemed to be a temporary arrangement becomes unsustainable; (b) the fifth respondent had not even applied for renewal of license for the year 1993-94, hence there could be no question of renewal or grant of license in his favour and (c) the license granted to the appellant was a permanent/regular license which could be cancelled only on any of the grounds specified in Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act and admittedly none of the said grounds were present in this case nor was the license canc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
