The Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition said that unless cogent material and evidence exist, such suspicion may never result in penal or harsh consequences such as cancellation of another license.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Sandeep Singh.
Challenge has been raised to the order dated 24.7.2021 passed by respondent no 2-Collector/Licensing Authority, Fatehpur whereby the petitioner’s license for the counter-liquor shop at Majhenpurwa has been cancelled under Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910.
Undisputedly, no specific allegation of violation was made against the petitioner with respect to running/operation of the license of liquor shop at Majhenpurwa. Earlier, the allegation had emerged under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act with respect to another license issued to the petitioner for the shop at Gehrukheda that led to cancellation of the petitioner’s license for the said shop at Gehrukheda. At present, that matter is lying under consideration before the Court.
Solely for the reason of that action taken by the State- respondents, another license of the petitioner for a liquor shop at Majhenpurwa was cancelled vide order dated 28.05.2019. It was carried in appeal and through that, it was brought to the Court by means of Writ Tax.
Thereafter, the orders passed by the Licensing Authority and the Appeal Authority were set aside and the matter remitted to pass fresh order. That consequential order passed by the Licensing Authority has been impugned in the petition. Only this much has been observed by way of reason that the petitioner’s license for the shop at Gehrukheda stands cancelled. Without elaborating how that cancellation of license may impact the petitioner’s continued license for the shop at Majhenpurwa, by way of automatic consequence, that license of the petitioner had been cancelled.
The Court observed that,
Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find, the State authorities have failed to apply the law laid down by the single Judge decision of the Court. On query made, it is undisputed, the said judgement had attained finality. Therefore, it was not open to the Licensing Authority to repeat the mistake and cancel the petitioner’s liquor license for the shop at Majhenpurwa without offering any reason as to why the cancellation of the petitioner at Gehrukheda demanded cancellation of the other license as well.
On merits of the matter, the impugned order only recites that certain violations had been found committed by the petitioner, with respect to shop at Gehrukheda. Recovery of eight pouches with forged/no Q.R code were found. Similar quantities of liquor bottles with tamper seals were recovered. Last, quantities of other goods namely – Alum (250 grams) and Urea (one kilogram) were recovered from the shop premises. Here, it may be noted, neither any sample test was obtained nor there is any allegation of spurious/adulterated liquor having been manufactured or sold by the petitioner for the shop at Gehrukheda.
While suspicion may arise and may continue to exist in the minds of the Licensing Authority from the facts of an individual case, at the same time, suspicions and presumptions may never translate to findings, on their own. Unless cogent material and evidence exist, such suspicion may never result in penal or harsh consequences such as cancellation of another license, the Court said.
“Despite earlier opportunity granted to the State-respondents, no other or further fact has been alleged against the petitioner in terms of language of Section 34(2) of the Act as explained in the earlier decision rendered by the single Judge, inter parties. The impugned order is a reiteration or repetition of the earlier stand taken by the State. Therefore, it has to be acknowledged that there exists no material with the Licensing Authority to pass any order cancelling any other license of the petitioner, except that for the Model Shop at Gehrukheda”, the Court further observed while allowing the petition.
“The order dated 24.07.2021 is quashed. Let the license of the petitioner for the shop at Majhenpurwa be revived/renewed in the current excise year. Any amount lying in deposit, may be adjusted against the license fee to be deposited for the current excise year”, the order reads