IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13659 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 29.01.2008 Ludar Dass .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.G. Masih, Senior DAG, Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner Ludar Dass has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 21.8.2007 and 24.8.2007, Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively, passed by respondent No.5. The petitioner, being fully eligible for allotment of a licence for sale of Punjab Medium Liquor and Foreign Liquor (including IMFL Beer, wine and Cider) under the Excise Policy of the State for the year 2007-08, was allotted L-14A and L-2 licence for running the liquor vend at Lalluana Road, Mansa. The said licence was valid for the period from 1.5.2007 to 31.3.2008. The petitioner was asked to get the site plan of the vend premises CWP No. 13659 of 2007 -2- approved from the Assistant Excise &Taxation Commissioner. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a site plan for approval of the vend premises. It is his case that the liquor vend was running at the same site for the last 15 years. According to the petitioner, the said site was approved by the Excise Department. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently, respondent No.5, on the verbal instructions of respondent No.3, ordered to shift the liquor vend of the petitioner to some other place on the ground that the existing vend was situated within 50 meters of a primary school running in a Dharamshala, whereas as per the Excise Policy of the Government for the year 2007-2008, the distance of any vend from a religious place or an educational institution should not be less than 50 meters. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the place of liquor vend of the petitioner has been ordered to be shifted by respondent No.5 illegally and arbitrarily, without providing an opportunity of hearing to him. He further submits that for the last 15 years, the liquor vend is running at the same place. However, learned counsel has not disputed the fact that the primary school is running in a Dharamshala within the distance of 50 meters of the liquor vend in question. Learned counsel further submits that while issuing notice of motion on August 31, 2007, operation of the impugned order dated 24.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) was stayed. Therefore, now the petitioner be permitted to run the said liquor vend within the vicinity of the primary school till 31.3.2008, the date on which the licence is going to expire. CWP No. 13659 of 2007 -3- After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as the written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No.1,2,4 and 5, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the extra ordinary power of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is admitted position that as per the Excise Policy of the State for the year 2007-08, no vend can be opened within a distance of 50 meters of a religious place or an educational institution. It is also admitted position that a primary school is running in a Dharamshala and the distance of the said school from the liquor vend in question is less than 50 meters. The petitioner was allotted the licence for opening a liquor vend not on a particular site, but on Lalluana Road, Mansa. Under the Policy, he was required to submit the site plan. The petitioner wrongly submitted the site plan of a site for the said liquor vend, which was within 50 meters of the said primary school. When the inhabitants of the area raised objection and met the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, in a `Sangat Darshan', he directed the respondent No.5 to consider the matter and shift the liquor vend from the existing place, which is totally contrary to the Excise Policy of the state. Before actually ordering to shift the liquor vend, the petitioner was directed to submit a fresh site plan shifting his vend beyond 50 meters from the said primary school. But instead of submitting the fresh site plan, the petitioner filed the instant petition. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that CWP No. 13659 of 2007 -4- before ordering the shifting of vend from the existing place, the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of hearing. Actually, in this case, no civil right of the petitioner was going to be effected by the shifting of the vend. His licence has not been cancelled. He was not granted the licence for running the vend at a particular site. As per the Excise Policy, he was required to open the vend beyond a distance of 50 meters from a religious place and an educational institution. In this case, he has only been asked to shift the liquor vend to some distance, so that it may fall beyond the distance of 50 meters from the primary school. He was asked to submit the fresh site plan. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the procedure adopted by the Excise Department cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. We are not inclined to accept the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner be permitted to run the liquor vend at the existing site till 31.3.2008, because it is situated within 50 meters of a primary school, an educational institution. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE January 29, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE