Ashok Lenka vs Rishi Dikshit & Ors

Before the High Court, the parties produced a large number of documents. It is not in dispute that 191 persons had been granted licences. Before the High Court, however, 65 licensees were made parties and 126 were not. The private respondents also filed their counter affidavits contending that the allegations made in the writ petition were incorrect. Several instances of alleged irregularities on the part of the District Level Committee in the matter of proper scrutiny of the contents of the applications filed by the licensees had been brought on record. The State appears to have filed documents containing approximately 3000 pages in order to show that the directions of this Court had been complied with, in letter and spirit. In reply to the said counter affidavit, the writ petitioners filed a rejoinder to which we shall refer to hereinafter. We may, however, notice that the State in purported response to the said rejoinder affidavit filed by the writ petitioners filed an additional affidavit dealing with the contentions raised therein.

The High Court noticed the contents of the additional return filed by the State on 23.02.2006 but apparently the contents thereof had not been taken into consideration on the ground that the same was by way of sur- rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners and, as such, such pleadings are impermissible without permission of the court. It was furthermore held that in the said additional return, untenable defences were set up covering up serious lapses committed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 12.

Furthermore, it would be a travesty of justice if the parties against whom serious allegations were made and are said to have been found had not been made the parties to the writ petition as by reason thereof they in terms of the High Court judgment were not allowed to carry on their businesses in terms of the licences granted in their favour.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in directing cancellation of licences of all the private respondents of the writ petition without arriving at a finding as to how and in what manner licence granted to each one of them was either in violation of the provisions of the statute or the directions of this Court.

(x) We direct the Chief Secretary of the State and the Commissioner of Excise to act strictly in accordance with law and oversee the functioning of the Scrutiny Committees.

Shri Amit Singhal, Ganjpara, Respondent No. 3

2. Higher Sec.

45. Shri Vikram Vishwal, Sarsiva, respondents No. 61 and 80

2. Age Certificate by Doctor 1391-1392 Enclosed 1393 As above

2. Voter List, 3. Rent Deed, 4. PAN Card, Age Certificate, 1433-1441 Enclosed 1442-1445 As above

65. Shri Pawan Singh, Fingeshwar, Respondent No. 88

19. Maheshbar Dass, Basna Group, Mahasamund

2. Rent Deed, 3. PAN Card, 4. Age Certificate 278-283 Enclosed 284-287 As above

2. Rent Deed

3. PAN Number 608-624 Enclosed 625-628 As above

Village Mali, Police Station Nabinagar, Aurangabad.

47 years- certified by private practitioner Dr. H.S. Hura Abhay Singh

(i) Certificate issues by Tahsildar does not bear revenue case number or seal of office of Tahsildar;

27 years- certified by private practitioner Dr. H.S. Hura Arvind Singh

(i) Residential certificate issued by the Sarpanch does not mention the revenue case number or the authority of the Sarpanch to issue the Certificate;

(iii) Discrepancies in addresses.

Certificate suggesting that he is a resident of Batha.

Certificate suggesting that he is residing at Baya Kasdol, District Raipur Certified by Dr. N.L. Upadhyay, a dental surgeon.

Anil Pal

(i) Discrepancies in addresses.

Pradeep Gupta Anil Kumar Gupta

(i) He is not an independent person;

(ii) His financial condition indicates that he could not undertake the financial burden of liquor trade.

(i) Not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station issuing the certificate.

From the aforementioned chart, it would appear that although various instances have been cited in respect of the persons against whom findings have been recorded in the impugned judgment, their licences remained valid whereas licences have been directed to be annulled in respect of Satyendra Singh, Abhay Singh, Arvind Singh, Anil Pal, Pradeep Gupta and Anil Kumar Gupta. We have hereinbefore dealt with the consequences of not impleading some successful licensees in the writ petition.

Rule 9 provides for affirmation of an affidavit by the applicant categorically stating that in the event he is selected, he shall furnish the information specified therein within 30 days from the date of grant of licence including a certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police of the district of which he is the resident.

The aforesaid findings of the High Court establish that the licences might have been issued in fake names and to the ineligible applicants. Our attention has furthermore been drawn to the fact that some of the applicants are facing criminal trials, veracity whereof is not established.

shall be omitted."

It may, therefore, be necessary that the applicant should state the details of the places where he had stayed or carried on business and produce a certificate from the concerned authorities from each such place.

We hope and trust that in future, i.e., for the following excise year, appropriate steps shall be taken to make the position clear that if the applicants are not residents of the State of Jharkhand either on a temporary or permanent basis, they would not be shown to be residents of such places wherefrom their antecedents cannot be verified. Such applicants, therefore, should not be allowed to furnish an address only for the purpose of communication and if so, the same should clearly be stated in the application.

The Scrutiny Committee appears to have relied upon certificates issued by Tahsildars, Municipal Counsellors, etc. which had not been objected to by the writ petitioners. It is stated that most of the applicants are income tax payees. They have been granted a PAN Card. In future, however, the authorities should insist that the applicants must enclose Xeroxed copies of their PAN Cards along with their applications.

We hope and trust that the State of Chhattisgarh and its authorities would not commit the same mistakes in the coming years keeping in mind the mandate of Article 47 of the Constitution of India and scrupulously observe the rules for disposal of liquor shops.

With the aforementioned observations and directions, these appeals are allowed. The parties, however, are directed to pay and bear their own costs.