IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3298 of 2010. Judgment Reserved on: July 14, 2010. Decided on: July 23, 2010. Daya Nand Tyagi ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG & Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. AG for respondents No. 1 to 4. M/S. Sanjeev Bhushan and Virender Thakur, Advocates for respondent No.5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The petitioner is licensee for Unit No. 18 at Baddi which comprises of three shops, Kalyanpur, Bhud and Baddi in Solan District. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 5th respondent has encroached upon the area allotted to the petitioner for the sale of the liquor at Baddi. It is the contention of the petitioner that his area comprised of Ward No. 1 and Ward No. 2 of Baddi Nagar Panchayat and the license of the 5th respondent, L-14 Swaraj Majra, is for Ward No. 3. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that the shop of the 5th respondent being located in Urban area, the 5th respondent under law cannot sell foreign liquor and 2 Beer and the premises has to be limited to country liquor only. Hence, the Writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) To call for the records of the case and after examining the legality and propriety, to direct respondents No. 1 to 4 to take immediate action against respondent No. 5 and to shift him to his area of operation for L-14 (urban area) liquor vend Swaraj Majra, which is in Ward No. 3. ii) To direct respondents No. 1 to 4 to immediately close the L-14 liquor vend urban area Swaraj Majra of respondent No.5 which is presently being operated from the area of operation of the petitioner from a portion of Ward No.1. iii) To direct respondents No. 1 to 4 to immediately stop the issuance of excise passes and release of IMFL and Beer to the respondent No.5 and to seize the remaining IMFL and beer lying in the premises of respondent No.5, which is being sold in violation of the Excise Announcements 2010-11 and H.P. Liquor License Rules. iv) To direct respondents No. 1 to 4 to take the complete accounts from respondent No.5 with respect to the sale of IMFL and Beer which has been issued to respondent No.5 and sold and to recover the sale price as fixed by the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation and after recovery, to adjust the same in the license fees of L-2 liquor vend of the petitioner, which has been caused financial loss on account of such illegal sale by respondent No.5 in contravention to the H.P. liquor license rules and the Excise Announcements for the year 2010-11.” 2. The State as well as the private respondent have sought to defend their stand submitting that the shifting of L-14 Swaraj Majra is only to another shop-room in the same location, within a radius of 50 metres. It is also submitted that the 5th respondent has been conducting the shop at the same location during the financial year 2008-09, 2009-10 3 and 2010-11 and there was no objection from the adjoining licensee. Apparently, there is no change of location. As far as the contention regarding the urban area is concerned, it is the stand of the State that only country liquor should have been allowed to be sold from there. But, license happens to be issued for sale of IMFL and Beer on account of the fact that the shop was originally a rural vend. However, owing to the re- organization of the Baddi Panchayat as Nagar Panchayat, the area has become urban. Since new license had not been granted and since there was only renewal of the existing license, it is submitted that L-14 Swaraj Majra shop of the 5th respondent was in-advertantly treated as rural vend for the purpose of renewal and the quota has been fixed and the license-fee also fixed accordingly. However, it is undertaken in the reply that “……. The replying respondents will not allow the sale of IMFL & Beer for the next Financial Year i.e. 2011-12, because the quota and license fee in respect of IMFL and Country Liquor has already been fixed in advance for current financial year i.e. 2010-11 at the time of the formulation of the excise policy and the renewal of the vend and as such any change at this moment will lead to huge loss of Government revenue which needs to be protected during the currency of the year.” 3. However, one question yet remains to be tackled as to whether shop-room may be it is the 3rd in the same row from where the liquor is sold by the 5th respondent is duly approved? Under Rule 37 of the Himachal Pradesh Liquor License rules, 1986, read with paragraph 10.2 of the Liquor Policy of the State for the year 2010-11, a licensee cannot be permitted to sell the liquor in a premises which is not in a premises in a license location without the approval of the premises by the competent authority. It is not clear from the reply or from the stand of the 4 respondents as to whether the premises from where the 5th respondent operates his license namely L-14 Swaraj Majra is duly approved or not. In case there is no approval, appropriate action shall be taken against the 5th respondent and respondents No. 1 to 4 shall see that the 5th respondent conducts the sale of liquor in terms of his license only from an approved premises. The needful action in that regard shall be taken within a month from today. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. July 23, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (karan) Judge.