The legal case revolves around a contentious dispute regarding the resettlement of a liquor shop, with the court delving into the intricacies of the law. The court’s legal analysis sheds light on the complexities of the case, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures and upholding the rule of law. Follow along to grasp the nuances of the court’s judgment in this significant legal matter.
Facts
- The First Respondent challenged the settlement of a liquor shop in favour of the Appellant.
- Advertisements were issued for resettlement of the shop, but no response was received.
- Sh. Balkar Singh was directed to open the shop as it was not being operated.
- The First Respondent complained about the loss of revenue due to resettlement at a lower amount.
- The Appellant participated in the resettlement process and was declared the successful bidder.
- The bid amount accepted for the shop was Rs.3,46,78,112/-.
- The Appellant filed an application to vacate an interim order, which was dismissed.
- Sh. Balkar Singh was directed to surrender the license as per Excise Act provisions.
- The allotment of the license to Sh. Balkar Singh was subsequently cancelled.
- The First Respondent filed a writ petition questioning the allotment in favour of the Appellant.
- A Division Bench of the High Court stayed the operation and execution of the settlement of FL 5 Shop Pithoragarh No.1 B in favor of the Appellant.
- The issue of loss of revenue is considered to be of immense public interest by the High Court.
- The Division Bench felt the matter requires consideration due to the loss of revenue.
- The Appellant filed an application to vacate the interim order dated 21.08.2020 but it was dismissed on 08.09.2020.
- The State was observed to have allotted the shop for a significantly lesser amount than what could have been offered in re-settlement.
- The First Respondent contended that the State is suffering a loss of Rs. 5 crores and the resettlement of the foreign liquor shop was for the remaining period of the financial year 2020-2021.
- The First Respondent did not participate in the resettlement process.
- The High Court noted recovery proceedings against the original allottee, Sh. Balkar Singh.
- The Division Bench observed that locus standi cannot be a ground for dismissal of the Writ Petition when there is an allegation of a significant revenue loss.
- The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge due to lack of locus standi of the First Respondent.
- The Division Bench stayed the operation and execution of the settlement of the liquor shop in favor of the Appellant until further orders.
- The Government clarified that there was no loss as the shortfall of revenue was being recovered from Sh. Balkar Singh after re-settlement.
- The liquor shops were temporarily closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, after which Sh. Balkar Singh expressed inability to continue.
Also Read: Judicial Review of Answer Key in Teacher Selection Process
Arguments
- To examine the bonafides of the First Respondent, counsel for him was asked to get instructions regarding a higher amount offer.
- First Respondent is not willing to deposit Rupees 8 crores but offers to pay more than the Appellant’s offer.
- No allegations of malafides on the part of the Government.
- High Court interfered with the license based on the purported loss to revenue.
- No loss to revenue due to recovery proceeding against Sh. Balkar Singh, as informed to the Division Bench.
Also Read: Jurisdiction and Substantial Questions of Law in Land Dispute Case
Analysis
- The Appellant paid Rs.3 lakhs per day but was prevented from continuing his business.
- The First Respondent misled the High Court by claiming willingness to offer a higher amount.
- The Writ petition was rightly dismissed due to lack of locus standi of the First Respondent.
- The Division Bench erred in staying the operation of resettlement despite Appellant’s compliance with licence conditions.
- The offer made by the First Respondent, who did not participate in the resettlement process, should not have been entertained.
- Interference with a valid license issued in accordance with rules is deemed unwarranted.
Also Read: Challenge of Secured Creditor’s Procedure
Decision
- The writ petition filed by the Petitioner is dismissed as frivolous with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the Appellant within four weeks.
- Encouragement of such frivolous petitions can lead to lack of finality in government licenses and permissions.
- No complaints of malafides, favoritism, or nepotism were found in the case.
- The orders of the High Court dated 21.08.2020 and 08.09.2020 are set aside.
- The Appellant is allowed to continue running the foreign liquor shop, subject to compliance with the terms of resettlement.
- Non-compliance may result in suitable action by the authorities.
- The Appellant was unable to operate the foreign liquor shop due to the interim order by the High Court on 21.08.2020.
Case Title: SURESH CHANDRA Vs. JOGA SINGH BISHT (2020 INSC 609)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003539-003540 / 2020
