HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J PETITIONER W.P.(c)No. 5695 of 2009 Lal Bahadur, S/o Shri Motilal, aged 39 years, Occupation - Business, resident of M. Pratap Nagar, Kosabadi, Korba, District Korba (CG) Vs RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department Excise & Commercial Tax, Secretariat, Mantrataya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Excise Commissioner, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Korba (CG) 4. The Collector, Korba, District Korba (CG) Present: Shri Rajeev Stirivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned GA for the State/respondents. ORAL QRDER ^ J9^ (Passed on 6tn Octobsr, 2009) Dhirendra Mishra. J The petitioner by the instant petition has prayed for the following relief(3): A. Thai, this Hon'ble Coitrt may be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the respondents. B. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 8.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4 in the interest ofjustice. C. That, this Hon'bte Court may be pleasedto direct the respondents to refund the amount of license fee of Rs.14,40,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lac Forty Thousand) & security deposit of Rs.9,60.591/- (Rupees Nine Lac Sixty Thousand and Five Hundred Ninety One) deposited by fhe petitioner in pursuance of license dated 31.3.2006 for country tiquor shop, Kailash Hagar, Ba/co, Korba. D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded. _. may ^? <flfr. Grievance ofthe petitioner is that he was allotted liquor shop at Korba for the year 2006-07. However, he could not operate the liquor shop in view ofthe jnterim order dated 13.4.2006 passed by this Couri: in WP No.1933/06 at the instance of Bharat Aluminum Cdmpany Ltd. (in short "Balco"). The petitioner filed WP(c)No.5939/08 and prayed for direction to the respondent/State to refund the security deposit and licence fee deposited by the petitioner against the liquor shop after deduction of requisite amount. The petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2006 with an observation that the petitioner may take steps in pending WP No.1933/06 for modification of the order dated 13.4.2006. The petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.62/07 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 30 lyiarch, 2007 with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Excise Commissioner for redressal of his grievances and liberty was reserved to the petitioner that in case his grievances arenot redressed, he shall be at liberty to move an application in pending WP No.1933/06. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner filed a representation before the Excise Commissioner and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 8 May,2007. The petitioner also preferred Special Leave Petition against the order of the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.1 1.2008. Review petition of the petitioner was also dismissed on 17th March, 2009. In the meanwhile, WP hk>.1933/06 filga" by Balco was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10 September, 2008 as withdrawn with no objection from the other side. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in limine on the ground of delay and laches as also on the ground that eartier writ petition ffled by the petitioner has already been decided on merits, which has been subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner cannpt be permitted to re-agitate the issue by filing a fresh petition on the ground that he could not file appropriate application in WP No.1933/06 as by the time his SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition filed by Balco was already dismissed. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not comply with the direction given in Writ Appeal No.62/07 as by the time his appeal against the order passed in writ petition was finally dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, WP No.1933/06 was already dismissed as withdrawn and thus, the petitioner has no remedy except to file a fresh writ petitjon for redressal of his grievances. -~^— -^o •*' ,^ have heard learned counsel for the parties. 1 am unable to accept the argument of Shri Rajeev Shrivastava that the petitioner was constrained to file the instant writ petition as by the time his SLP was finally dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, WP No.1933/0&stood dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, the instant petition is maintainable. There was a specific direction to the petitioner by the Division Bench to file a representation before the Excise Gommissioner and liberty was reserved to him to file an appropriate application in the pending writ petition, in case his grievances are not redressed by the authorities. The petitioner filed representation and the same was dismissed on 8 May, 2007, however, the petitioner did not move any application in the pending WP No.1933/06 and pursued remedy of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was finally dismissed. Taking into consideration the overall conduct of the petitioner in not avaiiing the liberty reserved to him in the writ appeal and further considering that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was finally dismissed by this Court, 1 am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on ths ground of doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly.the petition isdismissed. ^^ffa Dtut' jud&e ^ ^fl^-