• ^-\ &\,cl^ •' ' V-i l c' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNJL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLE SHR1 JUSTICE R.L.JHANWAR APPELLANT RESPQNDENTS W.A. No.257/2009 Ramadhar Shukla, aged about 66 years, son of Tate Shri Gaindu Prasad Shukla, Resident of Pahadi, Gudhiyari, Raipur Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Excise, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Raipur (CG) 3 Sujeet Das, son of l^rtik Das, R/o Netaji Chowk, Kotara Talab, Byran Bazar, Raipur 4 Smt. Shiv Kanya Keshwarwani, aged about 42 years, W/o Shri Ram Kesharwani, Gudiyari, Raipur (C.G.) 5 Collector (Excise), the Licensing Authority, Office of the Collector (Excise), Raipur(C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTSSGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT. 2006 Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Counsel forthe appellant. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate Generat with Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents No.1 & 5 on advance copy. Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Counsel for respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (05.10.2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Heard. ^ -^"s s.fc-w^^:'^^ \^s-^». '^ ''<!-• 1 "11 i %,,^y ''"• ^S'i^'" .-^ W.A.No.257/2009 Appellant/petitioner Ramadhar Shukla has filed this appeal against the order dated 9th of July 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.3964/2007 by the learned Single Judge ofthis Court. Learned counsel for the appellanfpetitioner submits that a liquor shop is situated in a locality, where the petitioner and other citizens also reside. He submits that the consum&rs of the liquor create nuisance and they disturb the peace and tranquility of the people living in the locality. He further submits that they use to purchase iiquor from the said shop and drink at open places in the iocality, due to which, the calm atmosphere of the locality has been vitiated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that no individual case has been reported by the petitioner and general allegations were made by him, therefore, the learned Single Judge, after considering the counter affidavit filed by the State, passed the impugned order and while dismissing the writ petition, for the reliefs claimed therein, it was directed that the State authorities shall ensure that the terms and conditions as prescribed in the license are complied with in its letter and spirit in future also. He also submits that the State has complied with the directions issued by this Court and as and when individual cases are reported to the concerned authorities, they wiil be dealt with in accordance with law. Para 5 of the impugned order contains about the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the State, whichwe also quote as under: "5 It is most humbly submitted by the Sub-lnspector, Excise Circle, Raipur City and it has been found that no person was found consuming liquor nearby the shop and no "Thela" selling eggs etc. was also found in the vicinity of the shop. The Panchnama was prepared accordingly on 12/12/2008 itself. Copy of the Panchnama is being filed herewith asAnnexure R-1/A. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the answering respondents that enquiries were made from certain ^ persons residing in the vicinity of the concerned liquor W.A.No.257/2009 .'L> shop, who also told that the liquor is not consumed around the shop. Copy of the statement so recorded is being filed herewith as Annexure R-1/B. 7. It is further submitted on behalf of the answering respondents that the Councilor of the concerned Ward No.9, in which, the shop is situated, has also given it in writing before the Collector, Raipur that, there is no objection in operating the shop at the present place and she has also assured for maintenance of peace in the surrounding area. A copy of letter dated 1/6/2008 is filed herewith as Annexure R-1/C. Similar letter has also been given by the Councilor, which has already been annexed with the return of the answering respondents. Even otherwise, it is worth to mention here that the concerned shop is situated in the main market area. It is pertinent to mention that adjacent to the instant liquor shop, two of the shops are also situated which are owned by the petitioner himself." We find that on account of such counter affidavit filed by the State, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and has issued the aforesaid directions to the State authorities fo ensure that the terms and conditions of the license are complied with. Today also, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State^assures that the terms and conditions of the license would be complied with and every possible step would be taken by the State authorities to see that the public peace and tranquility of the locality is not at all disturbed. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity or illegaiity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No OLd^Las.tQ-costs—— '^hyna Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 1