Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2100/2013 & CM No.3984/2013
MIS R.R.FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate
W.P.(C) 2100/2013 & CM No.3984/2013
MIS R.R.FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
\
Through: Mr. Abhay Raj Verma, proxy counsel for Mr. Najmi Waziri, Advocate for R-1 & 2
\
Through: Mr. Abhay Raj Verma, proxy counsel for Mr. Najmi Waziri, Advocate for R-1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
03.04.2013 Issue notice.
Mr. Verma, who appears on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2.
With the consent of the counsels, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
By this writ petition, a challenge is laid to the order dated 21.03.2013 passed by respondent no.2 i.e., the Dy. Commissioner (Excise).
Briefly, the petitioner has come to this court in the background of the following facts :-
The petitioner apparently had applied for grant of L-1 0 license for vending liquor. It is the case of the petitioner that the premises of the petitioner from which the petitioner proposes to sell liquor, were inspected and were found suitable for the said purpose. This is sought to be
03.04.2013 Issue notice.
Mr. Verma, who appears on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2.
With the consent of the counsels, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
By this writ petition, a challenge is laid to the order dated 21.03.2013 passed by respondent no.2 i.e., the Dy. Commissioner (Excise).
Briefly, the petitioner has come to this court in the background of the following facts :-
The petitioner apparently had applied for grant of L-1 0 license for vending liquor. It is the case of the petitioner that the premises of the petitioner from which the petitioner proposes to sell liquor, were inspected and were found suitable for the said purpose. This is sought to be
W.P.(C) 2100/2013 Page 1 of3
2013:DHC:7808 I' established by placing reliance on the inspection report dated 01.03.2013.
It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed based on specious grounds which cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The learned counsel submits that grounds for rejecting the petitioner's request for grant of license, as indicated in the impugned order is, the purported overwhelming public sentiment against its grant. It is stated that the premises in issue are located in a mall, where vending of liquor, under a licence cannot be prohibited.
It is a case of the petitioner that the respondents, have acted at the behest of a competitor, one, Mr. S.K. Kapur, who has been issued a L-7 license for running a private liquor shop.
Mr. Verma, who appears on advance notice, has quite correctly pointed out that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, which ought to have been availed of by the petitioner.
Mr. Uppal, on instructions, has stated before me that, he would have no difficulty in taking recourse to the alternative remedy of an appeal, under
Section 72 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (in short the Act) provided it is dealt with expeditiously.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority in terms of Section 72 of the aforementioned Act. If the appeal is filed, it shall be dealt expeditiously in accordance with the law, by the concerned authority, though not later than six (6) weeks from today.
Needless to say, order passed in the appeal shalf be communicated to the petitioner.
2013:DHC:7808 I' established by placing reliance on the inspection report dated 01.03.2013.
It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed based on specious grounds which cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The learned counsel submits that grounds for rejecting the petitioner's request for grant of license, as indicated in the impugned order is, the purported overwhelming public sentiment against its grant. It is stated that the premises in issue are located in a mall, where vending of liquor, under a licence cannot be prohibited.
It is a case of the petitioner that the respondents, have acted at the behest of a competitor, one, Mr. S.K. Kapur, who has been issued a L-7 license for running a private liquor shop.
Mr. Verma, who appears on advance notice, has quite correctly pointed out that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, which ought to have been availed of by the petitioner.
Mr. Uppal, on instructions, has stated before me that, he would have no difficulty in taking recourse to the alternative remedy of an appeal, under
Section 72 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (in short the Act) provided it is dealt with expeditiously.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority in terms of Section 72 of the aforementioned Act. If the appeal is filed, it shall be dealt expeditiously in accordance with the law, by the concerned authority, though not later than six (6) weeks from today.
Needless to say, order passed in the appeal shalf be communicated to the petitioner.
W.P.(C) 2100/2013 Page 2 of3
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master.
APRIL 03, 2013 yg
Dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master.
APRIL 03, 2013 yg
W.P.(C) 2100/2013
7~w!l..l.Jt} RAJIV SHAKDHER, J Page 3 of3
7~w!l..l.Jt} RAJIV SHAKDHER, J Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT