IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.454 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.1.2011 M/s Moonlight Bar. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 9.11.2010, Annexure P-2, passed by the licensing authority under the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, cancelling L-4 and L-5 Licence of the petitioner and order dated 16.12.2010, Annexure P-4, passed by the appellate authority, affirming the said order. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it obtained a licence in Form L-4/5 in the year 2007-08 for retail vend of foreign liquor in its restaurant which has been renewed upto the year 2010-11. On 16.4.2010, premises of the petitioner were inspected and a person having a bottle of beer was found. On that basis, Show Cause Notice was given to the petitioner, alleging that beer was C.W.P. No.454 of 2011 being sold by the petitioner in contravention of Rule 38(4)(a) of the Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, which was a ground for cancellation of the licence. The plea of the petitioner in response to the Show Cause Notice was that the bottle of beer was given to its relative without any money and it was not a sale. This plea was not accepted and the licence was cancelled. Appeal against the said order has been dismissed. The petitioner filed suit, which was got dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 5.1.2011, Annexure P-5. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the Show Cause Notice and the order, cancelling the licence, it has not been alleged that the bottle of beer which was found, was a sealed bottle without which there was no ground for cancellation of licence. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. The Show Cause Notice clearly mentions that the petitioner was found selling beer in contravention of the rules. In the reply, it was not the case of the petitioner that the bottle was an open bottle not a sealed one. Rather, its case was that the bottle was not being sold but was being given without price to its relative, which case was not substantiated. Even in the grounds of appeal, no specific plea was taken that the bottle found was not a sealed bottle. This being the position, the contention now raised for the first time, cannot be allowed to be raised in view of concurrent finding 2 C.W.P. No.454 of 2011 recorded by the licensing authority and the appellate authority that the petitioner contravened the rules. No interference is, thus, called for with the order of cancellation of licence. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 12, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3