C.R. No. 247 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 247 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 16, 2009 Sudhir Kumar .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 24.12.2008, passed by learned Additional District Judge -II, Panchkula. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is L-2 English Liquor Vend allottee for the year 2008-09. The location mentioned is Swastik Vihar Market within 200 meters from Anupam Sweets on either side of Swastik Vihar Market. An order dated 24.6.2008 was passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Ex)-cum-Collector, Panchkula in terms of a direction given by this Court in C.W.P. No. 8136 of 2008—Smt. Luxmi Devi v. State of Haryana for disposal of representations dated 26.3.2008 and 23.4.2008 made by her by passing a speaking order. It is noticed in the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commission (Ex.)-cum-Collector, Panchkula that due to non-availability of the site within the ear-marked location, the vend was opened nearly 500 meters away from there. The matter was sent to the higher authorities for approval of the changed location. The order on the representations made in Smt. Luxmi Devi's case (supra), which were referred to the authorities, was passed on the fact that Mata Mansa Devi Shrine was a sacred place of worship and the gate of the shrine is nearly 30 meters away from the vend, though the temple is 1.5 kilometers. Finally, it was concluded that new location had not been approved by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana and the licensee was directed to open the vend in the given location within 15 days. Thereafter, the representations were heard by Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula in the presence of the officials of the Excise Department, who directed that the licensee should shift the vend from its C.R. No. 247 of 2009 [2] present location to the approved location within 15 days from the date of order. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit challenging the order dated 24.6.2008 passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Ex.)-cum- Collector, Panchkula and order dated 2.7.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned trial court vide order dated 21.7.2008 granted one month's time to the petitioner to find some other suitable site within the permitted location and shift the vend there. The order was appealed against before the learned lower appellate court. Vide order dated 24.12.2008, the learned lower appellate court disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the interim order and granted him three weeks time to vacate the disputed location, failing which the Excise and Taxation Department was given liberty to take action against him in accordance with law. However, it was further observed that in case the department permits running of vend on the changed location as per the policy, they were at liberty to do so. It is this order which is impugned in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted hat the petitioner is not at fault in the present case. The department had chosen such a location where no site for opening of liquor vend was available and under these circumstances, he had to open the vend at a nearby place. The petitioner was being supplied the quota of liquor at the new place, even though it is stated to be outside the ear-marked area. At the fag end of the licensed period, the petitioner should not be dislocated from the site. He further submitted that it is because of inaction on the part of the Excise and Taxation authorities that the petitioner has been made to suffer, as they have not taken any final decision on the report of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner opining that the case for shifting of location of the vend was made out. He further submitted that subsequent to the passing of the order, the petitioner was issued a notice by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Ex.) on 12.1.2009 to comply with the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula. Prior thereto, in revision filed by the petitioner before the Secretary- cum-Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise and Taxation, Government of Haryana against the order dated 1.10.2008 passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, hearing was fixed for 8.1.2009. However, on that date, no order was passed on the prayer for stay by the petitioner. Keeping in view these circumstances, the submission is that the impugned order passed by the learned court below deserves to be set aside. In the alternative, submission was that the petitioner be given two days time to approach the authorities again. C.R. No. 247 of 2009 [3] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is a case where the spirit of the order passed by this court, while directing the respondents to decide the representations made by the effected persons on account of opening of vend near Mata Mansa Devi Shrine has been totally defeated. In spite of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 2.7.2008, directed the petitioner to shift the vend to the ear-marked location, but still the petitioner is operating from a location which does not fall within the area of his allotted location and may be within the prohibited area as per the policy. It is a case where admitted facts on record are that the petitioner was granted L2 English Liquor Vend in Swastik Vihar to be located in Swastik Vihar Market within 200 meters from Anupam Sweets on either side. Admittedly, the vend is running at a place which is at a distance of 500 meters away therefrom and towards Mata Mansa Devi temple, thereby hurting the religious sentiments of the people having faith therein. There is no approval of any competent authority for change of location in terms of the excise policy for the year 2008-09. The petitioner, in fact, was more interested in pursuing his remedy before the Civil Court after getting the interim stay instead of getting the root cause of the action cured. It is for the reason that even the licensed period would be expiring on 31.3.2009, the matter was taken up by the petitioner before the Secretary-cum- Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise and Taxation, Government of Haryana against the order dated 1.10.2008 passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the request of the petitioner for shifting the location of the site of the liquor vend was not accepted and he was directed to shift the liquor vend to the location which is permitted as per the policy. The petitioner even filed a review against the aforesaid order on 15.10.2008. The same was filed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana vide communication dated 18.10.2008. A prayer for interim stay seeking permission to continue business at the existing place was also made. Though the matter was fixed before the Financial Commissioner on 8.1.2009, but no interim stay was granted, meaning thereby at present, the petitioner is sailing in two boats. In fact, he is trying to achieve best of both the worlds in whatever manner he can. The competent authority, where the matter regarding change of location of the liquor vend is pending, has not granted any relief to the petitioner and no interim stay even for continuing the vend at the changed location has been granted, but the petitioner is seeking interim stay from the civil court. Even though the admitted facts are that he is running the vend for the last more than 9 months at a location, which is 500 meters away from the approved location. C.R. No. 247 of 2009 [4] In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 16.1.2009 mk