116 HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE CUHAniSGARH : ^^SVg DIVISION BENCH CORAM -gf Petitioner: Respondents HCWBLE SWU SKJMYAK, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI D.R. E»SmmjKH,J. Writ Pemkm No. 268A W 2006 yoheshwef Narayan Dwivedi, S/o Late Batran Prasad DwlvecB, Aged about 50 yearas, Annpuma hfemdir, Sheorinar^an. JanjgtrChampa (C.G.). Versus 1. State<rfChhatti^|arti, Through Secrelary, Excise Department, Mantrafcaya, Stastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Ewise Commisskwwr, Shiv Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Coltector flExcise). Janjgir Oampa (C.G.) 4. Shri Btoissital Jatewal, S/o Late Bacchalal Jaiswal, Aged about 80 yeara, R/o Manendra^arh, Distrid - Koria(C.G.) Writ Petition No. 2181 OF 20M Petifioner: Respondents Bhaiyatat Jaiswal. S/o Late Shrf Bachchatal Jaiswal, Aged about 80 yeare, R/o Manen<teE®ati, CM^te Korea (CWiatfisgarh) Versus 1. StateofChhaUisgarti, through Secretary, Departmait erf Excise, Manlralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (ChhatBsgarh) 2. Commissiorwr ^xcise), ChhatUsgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Coltector ^xcise), Dislrirt Jaiggfr- Champa (Chhattisgarh). 7 -2-- 4. Additfonal Commissfoner, District Janjgir Champa (ChhatUsgarh) Present: Shri Prashant Jayaswal, leamed Sr. Advocat®with Shri Ali Asgar, leamed counsel for the pefiSoner- Visheshwer Narain DwivecB In W.P. No. 2584/06. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, leamed Sr. Advocatewith Shri Amrito Das, teamed counsel for the peiaionw- Bhaiyalal Jafewal in W.P. No. 2191/06. Shri Prashant Mishra, leamed Ackll. A.G. with Shri Utkarsh Verma, tearned Dy. G.A. for theState. ORALORDER (Passed on 27m Ame, 2006) The foUowing oral order of the Court was passed by S.R. Nayak, GJ. Both the writ petiUons arise out of the licence grarted in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 2191/2006 who is arrayed as respondent no.4 in W.P. No. 2584/2006. to run a lk|uor shop wittun ttie territory which (aBs wthin the municipal Umite of Sheorinarayan. 2. On 17-02-06, a press-note was issued calBng for appB<attons for grant of R. and CL Bcences In Stoorinarayan group of shops for the period commencing from 01-04-06 to 31-03-07. In response to that press-note fesued by the CoUector ^xcise), District Janteir Champa. petitioner-Bhaiyalal Jaiswal applied for the licerKe. The CoUector (Excise), District Jan@ir Champa l>y his orcler dated on 30-(»-06granted the licence to Bhaiyatal Jaiswal. tt appears that after the grant (rf licence in favour of Bhaiyalal Jaiswal, ttie local Member of LegislaBve Assembly took excefrtion to the grant of licence on the ground ttiat the licensee was permttted to establish the lk|uor shop within the munic4»al limits of Sheorinarayan IWunKMpalHy. That led to the CoUecbM- (Eiasise), Distrid "T- Janjgir Champa issuing a noBce dated 07-04-06 foltowed by another noUce dated 13-04-06 direcfing the licensee to shitt the liquor shop outeide the municipal limte of Sheorinarayan. Feeling aggrieved by the above notices, licensee-Bhaiyalal Jaiswal has preferred W.P. No, 2191/2006. A Single Judge Bench of this Court white entertaining the wrtt p^ition on 26-04-06 directsd that status qw that obtained as on that day should be maintained till further orders. 3. On service of notice, respondents/ State AuthoriCes have put in appearance through leamed Addl. A.G. and they have fited the rebmi opposing Uie writ petiUon. They have also fited M.W.P. No. 2(»7/20)6 praying for vacadon of the interhn order granted by this Court on 26^)4-08. When the matter stood thus, Visheshwer Narayan Dwivedi who is a Mahant of the tempte Annfxirna Mandir, sUuate in Sheorinarayan has filed W.P. No. 2584/2006 as Publlc Interest LMgation to espouse the causeof the publte without seeking any pereonal relfef. In the said PIL dso licence granted in favour of Bhaiyalal Jaiswat has been assailed. Since fhe subject matter of both Uie writ petitions is the same, we dutAed both the writ petitions andwith the consent of the leamed counsel for the parties, we heard the writ petftions finally and they are being dispwed of by thfe common order. 4. We h^ird Shri lUlanindra Shrivastava, teamed Sr. counset for the petidoner in W.P. No. 2191/2006 and Shri Pradiant Jayaswal, teamed Sr. counsel for the petih'oner in W.P. hto. 2584/2006 and Shri Prashant Mishra, teamed Addl. A.G. for the respondents/State Authorities. 5. The basic facte are not disputed and if they are not in dispute, we are of the considered opinion that only on the ground af undisputed facls, ^. -^- <he licence granted in favour of Bhaiyalal Jaiswal, impugned in both the wrtt petitions, could not be sustained in law. 6. Undisputed facts are;- Well before the Collector (Excise),District Janjgir Champa issued a press-note on 17-02-06 calling for applications fbrgrant of Iteence, the Commissioner of Excise, State of ChhatUsgarh on 13-02-08 had issued administrafive instructkms. Clause 4.2 of the said circular, in specifk; terms, directs that liquor licence shatl not be granted in a tocationwhich falls within tte territorial Vmits <rf seven specified Munfeipalittes wherein holy places are situate. Sheorinarayan Municipality is one of the sa'id Munic4»alities specilied in Uw circular. The power of ttie Excise Commissioner to issue the cireular is not contested before us by any of the petitionere and it could not be contested also. It is needless to state ttiat Ihe Collector (Excise), District Jan^ir Champa is legally bound by ttie administrative instructfons issued by ttie Excise Commisatoner, State of ChhatKsgarh. Admittedly, in pursuance of the Iteence issued by the Coltector (Excise), District Janjgir Champa, the p^iUoner &ia^ilal •laiswal was altowed to establish the liquor shop within Uie limtts of Sheorinarayan MunfcflMlity and in (ac<, he estabdshed the Uquor shop veiy muchwithin the limite. If the ticence issued by the Collector (Exci^). pfetrid Janjgir Champa is in utter violation of the mandatoiy condttions prescribed by the Excise Commissioner by virtue of the detegated power under the C.G. Excise Act, no excs(<ion coukl be taken by ttie pdfttoner to the impugned action of the Collector (Excise), to correct th®wrong order passed by him. In that view of the mdtter, wedo n<* flnd any merit in W.P. No. 2191Q006 and it is accordingty dismissed. Forthe same reasons stated by us supra, W.P. No. 2584Q006 fited by Visheshwer Narayan Dwhredi as PIL is 12& ~5 entiled to be allowed. It is accordingly altowed and the Ifcence grantal in favour of the 4*1' respondent-Shri Bhaiyalal Jaiswal is quiBhed. In txSh the writ petitions, the partiesare direrted to beartheirrespective costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^ ^.