CWP No.6359 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6359 of 2014 Date of Decision: 2.4.2014 Yashbir Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.
PRESENT: Mr.A.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1.
In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the amended Excise Policy for the years 2013-15 (Annexure P-9) and letter dated 21.3.2014 (Annexure P- 11) whereby the liquor vend owners are directed to get the licence renewed upto 24.3.2014 for the changed location as per the policy (Annexure P-9).Further, a writ of Mandamus has been sought directing the respondent-State to issue the licence for ATL-14-A Kundli No.2, Group No.1 which has been shifted from the Highway and to refund 21% security amount in respect to licence for ATL-14A, Kundli No.1 Group No.1 and ATL-14A Safiabad Group No.1 amounting to ` 76,38,876/- along with interest w.e.f.1.4.2014 and to adjust the same in respect to ATL-14A Kundli No.2 for the year 2014-15.
Singh Gurbachan 2014.04.04 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.6359 of 2014 -2- 2.
In February, 2013, the State of Haryana issued an Excise Policy (Annexure P-1) for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 for grant of various kinds of licences as envisaged therein.
As per Clause 1.2.5 of the Policy, the retail liquor outlets on the National Highways/State Highways (except in case of retail liquor outlets located in the areas of Municipal Committee/ Municipal Corporations/Councils/Housing Boards or any other local authority/Urban Estates/the areas developed by the colonizers with the approval of the Government) were required to be located at a distance as stipulated in the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963.
In pursuance of the said Policy, the respondents issued the excise arrangement in regard to location of the liquor vends and also approved the site plans with regard to location of 3499 liquor vends.
The petitioner was allotted the licence for Group No.1 having three liquor vends at L- 14A, Kundli No.1, L-14A Kundli No.2 and L-14 Safiabad.
Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the amount along with security.
One Arrive Safe Society filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing CWP No.25777 of 2012 in which the State was directed to frame a fresh policy for the year 2014- 15.
The State instead of framing a fresh policy of 2014-15, had amended the Excise Policy by incorporating clause 2B whereby an option was given to the liquor vend contractors to close down the liquor vends on the National Highway or to shift their location.
However, no option was granted for the other unaffected liquor vends due to the order passed by this Court in CWP No.25777 of 2012.
Therefore, it was mandatory for the contractors to get the unaffected liquor vends renewed.
The respondents issued a notice dated 21.3.2014 (Annexure P-11) to the petitioner directing him to renew the licence of the liquor Singh Gurbachan 2014.04.04 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.6359 of 2014 -3- vends located on the highway for the changed location which was not feasible.
Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation (Annexure P- 12) to respondent No.3 informing that he was ready to run the liquor vend of licence No.ATL-14A Kundli-2, Group No.1.
The petitioner requested for refund of the security amount with regard to licences bearing ATL-14A, Kundli No.1, Group No.1 and ATL-14A Safiabad Group No.1.
However, no action has so far been taken thereon.
Hence, the present writ petition.
3.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition directing respondent No.3 to take a decision on the representation (Annexure P-12) in accordance with law by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 2, 2014 (JASPAL SINGH) gbs JUDGE Singh Gurbachan 2014.04.04 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh