CWP No. 12588 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 12588 of 2000 Date of Decision: 11.03.2010 Sanjay Bajaj Fateh Chand and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. Present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of orders dated 3.7.2000, 6.7.2000 and 30.8.2000 (Annexures P-1, P-3 and 4, respectively) whereby a fine have been imposed on the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted L-14 A (Country Liquor) vend of Malik in Jagraon Circle, District Ludhiana, for the year 2000-01 i.e. from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001, being the highest bidder in an open auction which was held in the month of March, 2000. On CWP No. 12588 of 2000 2 15.4.2000, the liquor vend of the petitioner was checked by the excise staff and certain irregularities were found. The petitioner was issued show cause notice for the alleged irregularities. Again on 14.6.2000, the liquor vend of the petitioner was checked and it was found that the petitioner had sold one case of liquor containing 12 bottles for Rs.600/- instead of minimum sale price of Rs.80/- per bottle and another show cause notice was issued to him for the aforesaid fault. After taking up both the aforesaid cases together, licence of the petitioner was suspended for a period of ten days under Section 36(c) of the Act, vide order dated 3.7.2000. However, respondent No.3 compounded the suspension under Section 80(2) of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs.3.00 lacs. Order dated 3.7.2000 reads as under:- “Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases, I am convinced that the licencee has made his licence liable for the cancellation in respect of the concerned vend under Section 36 (c) of the Punjab Excise Act (1 of 1914). However, the licence is not cancelled but is suspended w.e.f. 7.7.2000 to 16.7.2000 under Section 36(c) of the Act ibid, the suspension would be foregone under Section 80(2) of the Punjab Excise Act (1 of 1914) if the licencee pays a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lacs only) by 6.7.2000.” The petitioner filed appeal alongwith an application for interim stay against the aforesaid order. The appellate authority while issuing notice of the said appeal directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the penalty imposed by respondent No.3 i.e. from 3 lacs to 1.5 lacs, by 7.7.2000. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.8.2000, the appellate authority had directed the CWP No. 12588 of 2000 3 petitioner to deposit Rs.1 lac more in addition to Rs.1.5 lacs, already paid by the petitioner. Appellate Authority has specifically held that if petitioner pays additional penalty of Rs.1 lac, cancellation of licence would be foregone. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undisputedly, period of Licence LD-14 stood expired. Undisputedly, without fresh licence for fresh period, petitioner cannot be permitted to run the liquor vend. Impugned order dated 3.7.2000 provides that suspension of licence would be foregone under Section 80(2) of the Act, if the licencee pays penalty of Rs.3 lacs. Undisputedly, petitioner was permitted to run the liquor vend for the remaining period on payment of Rs.1.5 lacs by the Appellate Authority while admitting the statutory appeal. Thereafter, Appellate Authority imposed additional penalty of Rs.1 lac with the same condition that if the licencee pays additional penalty then cancellation order would be foregone. Since period of licence is over, hence there is no question of continuance of the suspension of licence or seeking cancellation of suspension of licence. In view of the above, we are of the view that since the petitioner has already paid 50% of the penalty pursuant to the Appellate Authority order and has completed the licence period, hence nothing more can be recovered from the petitioner in the changed circumstances. In view of the above, we dispose of present writ petition with the direction that nothing would be recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders and payment of Rs.1.5 lacs made by the petitioner pursuant to the Appellate Authority order would be treated as penalty CWP No. 12588 of 2000 4 imposed on the petitioner. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 11.03.2010 sk.