Petitioners Respondents : Hon'bie Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'bte Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. ?nt Petition (P.I.U No. 6^76/2007 1 Bhupendar Singh, S/o Shri Jogender Singh, Aged about 36 years, R/o M.1.6. 331-A, Borsi, Durg (C.6.) 2 Ajay Verma, S/o Late Shri Sewar-am Verma, Aged about 37 years, R/o Street No.IO, Zone No.3, Ward No.52, New Adwsh Nagar, Durg (C.G.) 3 Smt. ©ayatri Sahu, Vv7o Shri Govardhan Sahu, Aged about 38 years, R/o Manos Bhavan, Jawahar Chow.k, Borsi, Ward No.51, Durg {C.Q.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh- Through the Secretary, Excise Department, &.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.<5.) 2 The Commissioner (Excise), Raipur (C.e.) 3 TheColiector(Excise), District Durg (C.&.) 4 The District Excise Officer, District Ourg (C.6.) Shri Manish Sinah Bhandari, S/o AAcmohar Singh Bhandari, Aged about 37 years, R/o Agrasen Bhavan, Durg (C.G.) Proprietor - Roya! ftestaurfflit and Lodge Borsi Road,Durg (C.6.5 s''?; ?»- s'^' PUBLIC INTEREST LITCeATEON UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUTEON OF INDIA Present: Shri P biwokar, Sr. -Advocate with Shri P.R. Patankar, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri N.K. Agrawai, Dy. Advocate ©eneral for respondents No.l to 4. Shri V.&. Tfflnaskar, Counsel for respondent No.5. crh Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition styied as 'Public Intepest Litigation' for the foliowln§relief(s): (i) That, the respondents 1 to 4 be directed to immediateiy cancel the FL-3 iicense granted to respondent No.5 for opening a Foreign Liquor Bar at Royal RestQurant, Shukla Complex, Borsi Rood, Durg. (ii) That, the respondents be also directed to produce the entire records regarding the grant of llcense to respondent No.5 for kind perusal of this 1-lon'bie Court. (iii) Tha.t, th.e respondent No.l to 4 be directed to take steps so that no untoward incident take place in the locaiity as there is severe protest in the locality. (iv) Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit qnd ppoper in the facts o-nd circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioners in the writ petitlon have pleaded that F.L. 3 license wos granted to respondent No.5 against the nrovisions of !o.w. ^—-" 4. Shri \f.G. Tamaskar, leamed counsel for respondent No.5 on the other hand submitted that no such license has been gronted to respondent No.5 so far, ond the application fiied by respondent No.5 for grant of the license is still pending with the authorities. Shri N.K. Agrawal, leorned Dy. Advocate ©eneralinvited our attention to para 12 of the counter otffidovit which reads as follows: "That, ther-eafter, the District Excise Officer has forwarded the mcrtter to the Collector on 01/09/2007 informing the entire situation and a!so proposing that the appiiccri-ion preferred by the respondent No.5 be rejected in ti9ht of the pubiic agitation/c-omp!aints. It was also recommended that the respondent No.5 may be given an opportunity of hearing before passing of any order. However, the petitioners, thereafter, rushed to this Hon'bie Court alieging that the FL-3 license has been illegaily granted in fovour of the respondent No.5 by the answering respondents. This aiiegation is absoiutely misplaced cmd misconceived as the answering respondents have not granted any license in favour of the respondent No.5. Infact the final decision is yet to be taken by the' Collector and as suggested by the District Excise Officer vide note sheet dated 01/09/2007, and which has been already stated herein above." 6. On due considerotion of the submissions of ieamed counsel for the parties and their pleadings, we deem it proper to direet tho-t the authorities shati decide the appjication submitted by respondsnt No.5 in accordonce with law. Tr' .^1^^.-*^^^ /•'^&^ '%. f ?i 'f—' : /./ .-..-^' 4 padma 7. With the above direction, the wrlt petition stands Security amount be refunded to the petitioners. No order as to costs. _——— Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge •