CWP No. 3889 of 1987 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 3889 of 1987 Date of Decision: 20.01.2010 Ajay Uberoi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G.., Haryana for the respondents. ... Alok Singh J. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred, seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 13.8.1984 (Annexure P-6), 29.11.1984 (Annexure P-10) 27.12.1984 (Annexures P-14 to 25), 25.3.1985 (Annexure P-12) and 29.10.1986 (Annexure P-13), cancelling the liquor vend licence of the petitioner and directing the recovery of remaining license fee and forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner – licencee, as security. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner participated in auction for 16 liquor vends in district Sonepat. On 10.3.1984, the petitioner deposited requisite amount towards security and license fee with CWP No. 3889 of 1987 2 the Department as per the auction conditions. However, as per the petitioner, he never intended to take vends in the partnership, and that, he was the sole owner/proprietor of the company i.e. M/s. Vendra & Co., although, names of certain persons were wrongly shown to be partners with the petitioner. On the request of the petitioner vide letter dated 28.3.1984, respondent No.5 referred the case to respondent No.4 to correct the record deleting the names of the alleged partners and mentioning therein the petitioner to be the sole proprietor of the firm. Petitioner’s further case is that after the letter dated 28.3.1984, on an assurance given by respondent No.3, he deposited the entire requisite amount with Randhir Liquor Vend as per L-2 of district Sonepat. However, thereafter, respondent No.4 vide letter dated 13.8.1984 refused to make amendment in the record deleting the names of the partners and mentioning the name of the petitioner as sole proprietor. Petitioner’s further case is that although, he was running the liquor vend, he could not pay license fee from the month of August, 1984. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to him fixing 29.11.1984 as the date of hearing. However, despite petitioner’s request to grant him time to reply to the show cause notice, the impugned order dated 29.11.1984 was passed forfeiting the entire amount of security under Rule 37(36) of the Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Rules). Petitioner’s further case is that since on the date of auction, the petitioner was less than 25 years of age, no auction/liquor vend license could be granted in favour of the petitioner and since names of the alleged partners were not deleted from the record, hence no recovery can be made from the petitioner nor his security amount could be forfeited. 3. The respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner and CWP No. 3889 of 1987 3 have submitted that admittedly the petitioner having obtained L-2 license, was running shops and was paying license fee regularly till July, 1984 and did not pay license fee for all 16 vends from August, 1984, hence first of all, liquor vends were sealed as per law and thereafter, having issued show cause notice, although, no show cause notice was required, by the impugned order dated 29.11.1984, his security amount was forfeited. Further case of the respondents is that re-auction was made on 7.12.1984, resulting in a loss of the license fee, difference of which is recoverable from the petitioner and which can be recovered as a land revenue, hence impugned recoveries are being made as per law against the petitioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. For the purpose of deciding the present case, three questions are emerging for the consideration of this Court: - (i) As to whether any notice is required to cancel the liquor vend for non-payment of license fee ? (ii) As to whether forfeiture of security amount can be ordered invoking the power under Rule 37(36) of the 1970 Rules ? (iii) As to whether not correcting the record deleting the names of the partners by substituting the name of the petitioner as the sole proprietor, would make the respondents disentitle to make recovery of the loss from the petitioner ? 6. So far as, the first question is concerned, as admitted by both the parties, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner fixing 29.11.1984 as the date of hearing/reply and this notice was duly received by the petitioner. It is also admitted that the petitioner instead of furnishing reply to the show cause notice, allegedly sought time to file reply. Now the CWP No. 3889 of 1987 4 question before us is as to whether any notice was required to be served before passing the cancellation order and forfeiting the amount of security. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Ajudhia Nath and another, AIR 1981 SC 1374. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajudhia Nath’s case (supra) has observed as under:- “Thus, the proposition is by now well-settled that although an opportunity of being heard has to be given to a liquor vendor when his licence is sought to be cancelled, the same principle of natural justice does not come into play when the demand is merely for payment of a sum becoming due under the conditions subject to which the licence was granted, and this proposition fully covers these appeals. The demands for payment of the amount of the still head duty which had become due under the contracts accepted by the respondents and had remained unpaid were demands arising under condition No.8 above extracted and had, therefore, resulted from the terms of those contracts. No question of affording to the respondents any opportunity of being heard thus arises and the impugned judgment, is, therefore, liable to be reversed.” 7. In the present case also, first of all, the petitioner was called to make payment of the outstanding license fee and in failure thereof, to face the consequence of cancellation. Hence, no notice was required to be served on the petitioner. However, as observed earlier, notice was sent which was duly served but no reply was filed by the petitioner. Hence, action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal. The petitioner has to CWP No. 3889 of 1987 5 blame himself for not sending the reply. 8. Now, we deal with the second question. Admittedly, the petitioner was paying licensee fee, which he has paid till July, 1984 and thereafter, he did not pay any license fee despite the demand being raised. Hence, in view of Rule 36(26) of the 1970 Rules, first of all, vends were sealed and thereafter, finding contravention of Section 36(b) of the Punjab Excised Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the 1914 Act), show cause notice was issued on 12.11.1984, which was duly served to the petitioner. Hence, as per the terms of auction and as per the prevalent law, amount of security deposited by the petitioner was rightly forfeited and vends were directed to be re-auctioned. The petitioner was having full knowledge of the re-auction. The petitioner himself moved an application before respondent No.3 on 4.10.1984 praying for staying the re-auction of these vends, which was duly rejected by respondent No.3. Section 60 of the 1914 Act empowers the respondents to make recoveries as the arrears of land revenue. In view of the above, we find that non-payment of license fee by the petitioner is a valid ground to forfeit security and to re-auction the liquor vend and to recover the difference of license fee from the petitioner. 9. So far as, the third question is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner accepted the license in the name shown therein and deposited the license fee and sold liquor through the liquor vends in district Sonepat with effect from April,1984 to August, 1984. Hence, change/alteration of the names in the record does not absolve the petitioner from payment of the license fee. Admittedly, the petitioner was running the business and enjoying the license. Hence, he cannot avoid the recovery/forfeiture for the non-payment of license fee on the ground that his request to change the CWP No. 3889 of 1987 6 names in the record was turned down. 10. In view of the finding recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 20.01.2010 sk.