Dua, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by Messrs. Vemco Laboratories, Bhatinda, under Article 226 of the Constitution and is directed against the orders of Shri S.N. Bhanot, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, dated 2nd March, 1961 and of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), who is also Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department dated 21st September, 1961, confirming on appeal the order of the Commissioner. It is pleaded that the petitioner held since 1954 -55 a license in form L.I. under the Medicinal and Toilet Proparations (Excise Duties) Act 1955 and the rules made thereunder. In the petitioner's laboratory, the Medicinal Preparations are manufactured under the supervision of the Excise Officer appointed by the department concerned and the accounts and registers are regularly maintained which are duly inspected by the department from time to time. By means of a letter dated 27th July, 1959, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, respondent No. 3, called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation in respect of a transaction of 80 lbs. of Tincture Quassia issued on 19th August, 1959. The petitioner submitted the explanation on 11th August, 1959. On 11th March, 1960, respondent No. 3, served a show cause notice on the petitioner under rule 87 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Rules. The charges contained in the show cause notice were duly replied to by the petitioner on 4th April, 1960. According to the averments in the petition, nothing further was charged and no enquiry of any kind was held in the petitioner's presence and at no stage was any opportunity afforded to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses or to produce defence.
(2.) ON petitioner's request, Shri S.S. Grewal, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, discussed the case with the petitioner's representative on 30th August, 1960 when it was submitted that the petitioner did not have a fair deal inasmuch as no opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses or to produce defence had been afforded and that the petitioner had throughout been kept in the dark by the department. According to the petition, Shri Grewal observed that he was not attaching any importance to charge No. 1 contained in the show cause notice which was of a trivial nature. In respect of charge No. 2 also, Shri Grewal observed that the department would not press the same. Regarding charge No. 3, the petitioner requested the Commissioner to make available to them a copy of the Chemical Examiner's report and then to afford an opportunity for producing defence. In respect of charge No. 4, also, a request was made that an enquiry should be held by recording the statement of Shri Sarohia, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, in the presence of the petitioner and that an opportunity to cross -examine him should be afforded; on this charge also, a request was made to enable the petitioner to produce defence. Since Mr. Sarohia was not available on that day, the case according to the petition, was adjourned. With respect to charge No. 5, the petitioner took the stand that the case was mala fide and false and that the petitioner could substantiate it by producing a judgment delivered by a Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala, establishing the high handedness of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner in initiating an untenable charge. On 7th September, 1960, the petitioner handed over a copy of the Judgment to the Commissioner of the said Magistrate dated 29th May, 1960 in challan No. 26. A request was also made for a further hearing in the matter. Shri Grewal, however, informed the petitioner that the report of the Chemical Examiner with respect to charge No. 3 was still awaited and that the petitioner would be given an opportunity to cross -examine the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and also to produce defence after the case was complete. Shri Grewal was then transferred and was succeeded by Shri S.N. Bhanot who took over as Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Till February, 1961, no further action was taken in the matter when orders for Shri Bhanot's transfer were passed. On 2nd March, 1961, while relinquishing the charge, Shri Bhanot, according to the petition, arbitrarily passed an order cancelling the licence of the petitioner by refusing to renew the same. This, according to the averments, was done without affording any opportunity of hearing as required by the mandatory provisions of rule 87.
(3.) THE petitioner went up in appeal to the Punjab Government under rule 127, but the same was heard by Shri Gian Singh Kahlon who by his order dated 21st September, 1961, dismissed the same. It is these two orders which have been assailed in the present proceedings and two main points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;