IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTIAL Writ Petition No. 987 of 2008 (M/S) 1. Raksh Pal Singh S/o Harbans Singh R/o Village Sunpahar, Tehsil Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Sukhwant Singh S/o Gurmeet Singh R/o Village Pachpera Post Office Jamore Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Jasbir Singh S/o Puran Singh, R/o Village and post Sunpahar, Tehsil Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Bhupinder Singh, S/o Puran Singh R/o Village and Post Sunpahar, Tehsil Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Gurvinder Singh S/o Gurmeet Singh R/o Pachpera, Post Jamore, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. 6. Gurmel Singh, S/o Puran Singh R/o Village and Post Sunpahar, Tehsil Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar. 7. Devendra Singh, S/o Harabans Singh R/o Village and post Sunpahar, Tehsil Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar. 8. Darshan Singh, S/o Puran Singh R/o Village and Post Sunpahar Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. ..................Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Excise Civil Secretary Dehradun. 2. The Excise Commissioner, Dehradun Uttarakhand. 3. The District Excise Officer District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. The District Magistrate District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. P.S. Garbyal, District Excise Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. ............ Respondents Shri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vinod Nautiyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla, C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the allotment order dated 14.06.2008, passed by respondents relating to the shops of liquor in Charu Beta, Majhola Road, Jamore, in Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. A further mandamus has been sought commanding the respondents to accept the applications of the petitioners for allotment of the shops of liquor, mentioned above. It is also prayed that respondents No. 1 and 2 should take action against respondent No.5 i.e. P.S. Garbyal, District Exercise Officer, for causing damage to the revenue of the Government. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. 3. Petitioners have pleaded that in response to the notification dated 28.05.2008, published in the newspaper for allotment of liquor shops in the financial year 2008-09, the petitioners filled the application forms and took the same with status certificate, character certificate, resident certificate and necessary bank draft to deposit in the office of respondent No. 5 on 10.06.2008. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 5 refused to take the applications from the petitioners and deprived them of participating in the allotment of the liquor shops at Chaur Beta, Majhola Road, Jamore, in Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. It if further alleged that respondent No.5 by refusing applications of the petitioners has deprived the Government of the public money, which could have been deposited in the form of the non refundable security by each of the petitioners. It is alleged that respondent No. 5 in collusion with the other participants (who were allotted shops), to favour them, misbehaved with the petitioners and did not accept their applications. With these allegations it is alleged that the illegality has been committed in allotment of the shops in question. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3/respondnet No.5 in which it is pleaded that one Jasvinder Singh alias Pappu and one Kuldeep Sharma, came with the applications of the petitioners and since the applications were incomplete, the two were told that the incomplete forms would be rejected in the scrutiny. On this, according to the respondent No. 3/respondent No.5, the applications were taken back by Jasvinder Singh and Kuldeep Sharma. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. In para 11 and 12 of the rejoinder affidavit (at page 8 of the rejoinder affidavit), it has been stated that in fact the applications of the petitioners were not accepted by respondent No.3/resondent No.5 to favour certain participants belonging to the group of one Ponti Chaddha. 6. The persons who were allotted liquor shops are not impleaded as party by the petitioners. Non impleadment of the affected persons itself disentitles the petitioners to the reliefs No. 1 and 2, sought by them, as it would affect the persons allotted the shops without hearing them. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief No. (a) and (b) sought by the petitioners. However, as far as the allegations against respondent No. 5-P.S. Garbyal, the then District Excise Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, are concerned, the same are serious in nature, supported by the documentary evidence, filed in the form of annexures with the writ petition, which shows that the petitioners had their complete forms with the domicile certificate, drafts, character certificate etc. These documents are annexed as annexure-2 to 9 to the writ petition. Though in the counter affidavit, respondent No. 5-P.S. Garbyal, has filed a letter, written by one Jasvinder Singh that he took back the applications but it does not contain names of petitioners. Though Jasvinder Singh might have took back his applications (copy annexure –C.A. 4 and C.A. 5 to the counter affidavit) but it is hard to believe that the applications of the petitioners would have been taken back by third party in the manner stated in the counter affidavit of Shri P.S. Garbyal, the then District Excise Officer, District Udham Singh Nagar. It is difficult to believe that a person after getting all the formalities completed would take back the application in the manner stated by respondent No.5 Even if the applications were defective, he respondent No.5 had no business to ask the applicant, who had brought the applications to take them back, as applications should have been accepted and after scrutiny on the ground of defect, if could have been rejected. That would not have caused loss to the Government of more than Rs. 1,20,000/-, submitted by the petitioners in the form of drafts (non refundable) with their applications. 7. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed for relief No.(a) and (b). However, respondents No. 1 and 2, are directed to get an enquiry made into the conduct of respondent No.5- P.S. Garbyal, The then District Excise Officer, Udham Singh Nagar on the allegations made by the petitions in the writ petition, and if found that misconduct is committed, action should be taken against the erring officer/official. The Registrar General to send copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttarakhand. (Stay applications No.3544 of 2008, stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 04.11.2008 Sweta