IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.20093 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.1.2011 Vijay Singh. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks a direction against running of liquor vend by respondent No.4 at the site in question. 2. Case of the petitioner is that as per Excise Policy 2010-11, site in question was allotted as liquor vend, which was at a distance of 72 meters from the main gate of the bus stand. As per the Excise Policy, no retail outlet could be set up within the distance of 150 meters from the main gate of the bus stand, which distance could be relaxed upto 75 meters. In violation of the said policy, the vend was allotted to respondent No.4 in April, 2010. An injunction suit was filed by one Rajesh Kumar on 16.7.2010 but the same was withdrawn on 20.7.2010. Thereafter, on 31.7.2010, one Manjit Singh gave representation to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner against the running of the liquor vend but receiving no response, he filed a suit for injunction. The said C.W.P. No.20093 of 2010 suit was still pending. Another suit was filed by one Rajinder Singh, in which a Local Commissioner was appointed who gave report that the distance from the main gate to the liquor vend was 72 meters. In the meanwhile, the requirement of distance was relaxed to 75 meters. The petitioner also gave representation dated 23.8.2010 stating that the running of the liquor vend was illegal, on which no decision was being taken. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is patent that the period of liquor vend is about to expire in March. The petition was filed in November, 2010 but nobody appeared for the petitioner and the matter had to be adjourned. At this stage, the petition cannot be said to be bonafide. Moreover, same issue is pending consideration in two suits before the Civil Court. Whether or not the distance is 75 meters or 72 meters, is a question which will have to be determined on the basis of evidence. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere. Dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not debar the petitioner from pursuing his representation in accordance with law, if so advised. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 13, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2