IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10646 of 2008 RAM UDGAR MUKHIYA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 25.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Advocate General. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter bearing memo no. 881 dated 28.5.2008 and 12.6.2008 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Darbhanga by which the petitioner has been directed to remove his liquor shop within 24 hours. From the facts on the record, it appears that the petitioner was granted a licence for running a retail country liquor shop for the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3. 2009. In terms of the licence the petitioner selected a site for running the shop which was approved by the authorities and thereafter the petitioner started running his shop at the said site after spending a huge amount according to the petitioner. Subsequently, a complaint was made before the District Magistrate, Darbhanga that the liquor shop is situated in violation of the provisions of the Rule 47 of the Rules No. 47 1-F. As per the notice dated 28.5.2008 issued on the basis of the orders passed by the Collector, Darbhanga, the shop is located in a densely populated area near a Durga Temple. Accordingly the petitioner was directed to provide an alternative site where the shop would be transferred. The petitioner having not taken any action pursuant to the said letter, another letter dated 12.6.2008 was issued directing the petitioner to provide details of alternative site within 24 hours failing which action 2 would be taken to suspend the licence of the petitioner. Against the same the petitioner has come to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action has been taken without prior notice to the petitioner to defend his stand and thus it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. It is stated that the authorities of the Excise Department having once approved the site in question, it is not open to them to disturb the petitioner from running his liquor shop after the petitioner had made huge investment over the same and also paid the rent for the entire year with respect to the said shop. On a consideration of the materials on the record this Court does not find that the petitioner had raised any objection or filed any representation before the Excise authorities regarding the factual inaccuracy in the notice dated 28.5.2008. In that view of the matter, the shop has been allowed to run contrary to the provisions of the statutory rules contained in Rule 47 and thus the authorities have rightly directed the same to be shifted to an alternative site. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall provide details of the alternative site to the Excise authorities within a week from today and after approval of the site the same should be communicated to the petitioner and within a period of four weeks from the date of communication the petitioner must shift the shop to the alternative site failing which the excise authorities shall be free to 3 take appropriate action against him. During the said period the petitioner shall not be disturbed in running the said shop at the present site. S.Pandey. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)