TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner. As regards the reference to the violation of orders to contain the pandemic, those offences have been compounded and as I have indicated in paragraph-4, proceedings cannot be continued any further, qua those offences. The impugned orders of original and appellate authorities are set aside. The respondents are granted liberty to issue a show cause notice afresh indicating the violations and furnishing all materials on the basis of which the allegations are based. After receipt of response from the petitioner, hearing the petitioner and consideration of all materials, the officer will pass an order within a period of eight (8) weeks and the application of the petitioner for renewal of its licence shall be considered thereafter and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was issued on 29.03.2020 wherein the Excise Officer i.e. R3 alleges that the running squad had detected certain quantum of liquors that were placed in the premises without any lock and key. The allegation is itself vague. The notice continues to allege that the shop was not kept closed as required by virtue of orders in force at that time and for the aforesaid reasons, the respondent had suspended the operation of the excise licences of the petitioner. 2. This was followed by a notice dated 21.04.2020 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the suspended licence not be cancelled. The very next day, the petitioner has proceeded to compound the violation, and the reason for compounding is stated thus ' the violation of li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents. An order of cancellation came to be passed on 02.07.2020 as against which an appeal was filed before the first appellate authority, who has dismissed the appeal. 6. The original as well as the appellate authority refer to two reports, of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaikal dated 29.03.2020 and report of the Excise Officer dated 29.03.2020, both of which the petitioner states, have not been supplied to it. 7. The impugned order of the first appellate authority contains the following reasoning: '(i) Regarding the claim of maintenance of accounts of transaction, condition No.4 of license mandates maintaining correct daily accounts of transaction and submitting returns every month to the excise officers concerned. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in support of the claim. But from CCTV footage, only the roadside view could be seen. The CCTV footage had no view of the closed premises. (v) Regarding not sealing of premises, it is observed that is is responsibility of licensee to abide by terms and conditions of licence and Puducherry Excise Act and Rules, 1970. Further, it is also seen that Rule 199-A does not envision sealing of licensed premises by excise officials to enforce the Rules. (vi) From the records, it is seen that reasonable time has been given by respondent to explain the stock discrepancies. As records itself were not maintained properly, justification of limited staff does not seem to be reasonable. (vii) From the records it is seen that claim of appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any further, qua those offences. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders of original and appellate authorities are set aside. The respondents are granted liberty to issue a show cause notice afresh indicating the violations and furnishing all materials on the basis of which the allegations are based. After receipt of response from the petitioner, hearing the petitioner and consideration of all materials, the officer will pass an order within a period of eight (8) weeks and the application of the petitioner for renewal of its licence shall be considered thereafter and subject to such order. 10. A legal issue has also been raised on the interpretation of Section 44 of the Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 (Act). Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings pursuant to show cause dated 21.04.2020 is, as observed by me earlier, misconceived since it turns on an entirely different set of issues. The proper procedure, in my considered view, would have been for the Excise Officer to have issued a show cause notice afresh qua any other irregularities that he believes should be raised; but this has not been done. Liberty to do so has been granted in this order. 13. In fact the compounding of the offence in regard to the violation of the curfew condition is itself, in my view, improper. The compounding has been effected for violation of curfew condition during the operation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DM Act) imposed on 22.03.2020. Thus, at the time when the shop was stated to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
