IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11625 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 09.07.2008 Subhash Chand .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Sarvjit Singh Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Petitioner Subhash Chand, who is allottee in waiting for IOC Karnawas Vend, has filed this petition for quashing the allotment of Retail Sale Licence of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (L-2) for IOC Karnawas Vend, in favour of respondent No.4, who was drawn first in the draw of lots held on 10.3.2008, with a further direction that the said vend in question be allotted to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that actually respondent No.4 did not apply for IOC Karnawas Vend, rather he applied for Kishanpura vend. Therefore, when respondent No.4 did not apply for IOC Karnawas Vend, he should not have been allotted the said vend. CWP No. 11625 of 2008 -2- In the order dated 9.5.2008, Annexure P-8, passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, whereby representation made by the petitioner for setting aside the allotment of the aforesaid vend in favour of respondent No.4 has been rejected, it has been mentioned that as per the method adopted by the Department, an applicant was to mention the vend code, instead of name of the village. Respondent No.4, in his application, mentioned Code No. RWRFL-005, which was the code for IOC Karnawas Vend. However, at one place, respondent No.4 had wrongly mentioned the name of the village as Kishanpura. Since he had applied for IOC Karnawas Vend by giving right code number, his application was entertained for the said vend. The petitioner had also applied for the said vend. In the order dated 9.5.2008, the Excise & Taxation Commissioner, after considering the entire factual position, came to the conclusion that actually respondent No.4 had applied for IOC Karnawas Vend, by giving the right code number and merely because of wrong mentioning of name of the village as Kishanpura, which was not the requirement, allotment of retail liquor vend in his favour cannot be cancelled, as he was rightly permitted to participate in the draw of lots for allotment of the IOC Karnawas Vend. It has also been mentioned in the order that prior to draw of lots, the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding the participation of respondent No.4 in the draw of lots, particularly when detailed lists of applicants for each of the vends were displayed on the notice board. CWP No. 11625 of 2008 -3- During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed by counsel for the petitioner that name of respondent No.4 was mentioned in the list of applicants for IOC Karnawas Vend, which was displayed on the notice board. It is also undisputed that when the draw of lots for the said vend was held, the slip of respondent No.4 was drawn first and thereafter, slip of the petitioner was drawn. Respondent No.4 was declared as successful allottee, whereas the petitioner was declared as allottee in waiting. Merely because a mistake was committed by respondent No.4 by wrong mentioning the name of the village, now the allotment in his favour for IOC Karnawas Vend cannot be cancelled, particularly when he had mentioned the right code number on his application and his application for allotment of the aforesaid vend was processed for allotment of Karnawas Vend. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any ground to interfere in the present writ petition. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE July 09, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE