TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious orders and rules issued thereunder held auction for different country liquor vends in Patiala District adjoining Sangrur District on March 22, 1969. It appears that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner was not satisfied with regard to the bids received for 15 bids and directed re-auction on March 26, 1969. Pursuant to this order, when fresh auctions were held in respect of 15 vends in Patiala District on March 26, 1969 it included a vend at village Gulwati. Village Gulwati is at a distance of 4 to 5 furlongs from Bagrian where the vend for which the bid of the respondent was accepted was to be located. The highest bid for Gulwati vend was in the amount of ₹ 68,000/- which was accepted. The respondent felt that there may be an un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the auction and the license fee with which we are not concerned. The relief prayed for in the writ petition was that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to forthwith close the country liquor vend at Gulwati and until the vend is so closed not to make recovery from the petitioner of the so-called license fee concerning the liquor vend at Bagrian. Alternatively, it was prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to take over the liquor vend at Bagrian from the 20) petitioner discharging him from the liability of paying the licence fee. A further prayer was that the respondents be restrained from recovering the licence fee except with reference to the actual quantity of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was mandatory and therefore the action of the setting up of a country liquor vend at Gulwati was clearly not in accordance with law. The High Court incidentally held that this unlawful action has caused a damage to the respondent. The High Court, of course, did not grant the prayer of directing the respondents to close the country liquor vend at Gulwati but moulded the relief as under : After considering all the circumstances of the case we think it would meet the interest of justice if we merely direct that the respondents shall not recover from the petitioners so much of the licence-fee (otherwise due from them for the respective vends purchased by them at the auctions for their respective districts) as has been recovered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the same. The further question is whether respondent can have any grievance about it or is entitled to any relief on that count. 7. The High Court referred to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Punjab Intoxicants License and Sale Orders, 1956('1956 Order' for short). They may be extracted: 3. Under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, the general superintendence and administration by the Financial Commissioner in matters relating to excise shall be subject to the following restrictions: (a) No shop may be licensed for the sale of liquor or intoxicating drug in any village or in any ward or quarter of a town in which a license did not previously exists without the sanction of the State Government. (b) The number of liquor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. Rule 4 of the 1956 Order shows that the Financial Commissioner had the power to open licensed shops for sale of liquor and intoxicating drugs and this power could be exercised subject to the control of the State Government. It appears that the Punjab Government had empowered in the month of February, 1969 the Excise Taxation Commissioner to exercise powers of Financial Commissioner, that changes in excise arrangement regarding the opening and closing etc. of the vends may be made by the Excise Taxation Commissioner, if felt necessary by him under intimation to Government in respect thereof. Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner has stated in the return filed by him that the Excise Department considering the over-all d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material to show that Rule 5 of 1956 Order was complied with. The High Court overlooked the fact that there is a presumption, undoubtedly rebuttable that official acts are presumed to be done in proper manner. 9. The High Court also did not appreciate that writ petition was filed by a licensee who participated in the auction with wide eyes open and on untenable plea wanted to wriggle out of the bargain. In this connection, one can advantageously refer to decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Har Shankar Ors. etc. etc. v. The Dy. Excise Taxation Commissioner Ors. it has been held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligations vo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
