IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.19699 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.11.2008 Rajesh Kumar. -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- ORDER: This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 21.8.2008, Annexure P-5, requiring the petitioner to show cause why his licence be not cancelled under Section 36(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and why the amount of security for unexpired period of the licence be not forfeited. The allegation in the notice is that the petitioner had opened sub-Vend in less than 2.5 kms. from L-14A Vend at Hansi Road No.II and thereby, contravened condition No.2.6 of the Excise Policy for the year 2008-09. Case of the petitioner is that there was no violation of the same, as requirement of Rule 2.6 of the policy was applicable only to rural vends, while the petitioner had licence in the urban area. We find two difficulties in entertaining this petition. The petitioner had earlier filed C.W.P. No.15304 of 2008 for almost identical relief i.e. against sealing of the sub-Vend on the same ground. The petitioner was required to show any sanction for the sub-Vend, on C.W.P. No.19699 of 2008 which the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. Order dated 5.9.2008 is as under:- “On 29.8.2008, following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to show the sanction alleged to have been granted for opening Sub Vend in the area of Hakikat Nagar. List again on 5.9.2008.” Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any sanction having been granted for opening of Sub Vend. We, thus, do not find any merit in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he is going to file another petition against some other letter received. We do not express any opinion on the said course of action. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn. Dismissed as withdrawn. Apart from above, the impugned letter was merely a notice, requiring the petitioner to show cause why action be not taken and the petitioner has not chosen to take alternative remedy of responding to the said letter. In view of above, this petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner replying to the impugned notice and decision being taken by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 19, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2