M/S. KASHMIR WINE AND PROVISION STORE Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-2020-10-4
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on October 01,2020

M/S. Kashmir Wine And Provision Store Appellant
VERSUS
Union Territory Of JAndK Respondents




JUDGEMENT

JAVED IQBAL WANI,J. - (1.)In this petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs:
i) "The Show Cause Notice No.Notice/DECEJ/Exc/584-85 dated 06.06.2020 issued by respondent No.3;

ii) The communication No.EC/Exc/2020-21/550-52 dated 05.06.2020 issued by respondent No.2; May kindly be quashed.
AND
By issuing further appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of Mandamus, respondents be commanded to allow the petitioner to continue work on the basis of license granted in his favour being License No. 9/JKEL-2 dated 28.02.1980, transferred in the name of the petitioner on 24.02.1994 and continue supplying liquor to the petitioner for selling from its shop on the basis of the License afore-stated, without interception whatsoever.
AND
By issuing further appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from proceeding further on the basis of Show Cause Notice and communication impugned (supra) and taking any punitive action against the petitioner.
AND
Such other additional or alternative order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioner.

(2.)The aforesaid reliefs in the petition are being sought on the premise that the petitioner is holder of a liquor license bearing No. 09/JKEL-2 vested unto him on 24.02.1994, (after the earlier license being a partnership concern was dissolved and the name of the partners therein were deleted), issued under and in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act SVT. 1958, and the Jammu and Kashmir Liquor License and Sale Rules, 1984 Rules (herein after for short the Act and the Rules).
(2a) It is being stated by the petitioner in the petition that the license stands renewed from time to time and is renewed for the year 2022-2023 by the competent authority.

(2b) According to the petitioner a Show Cause Notice bearing No. Notice/DECEJ/Exc/584-85 dated 06.06.2020 came to be issued by respondent No. 3 purportedly on the basis of a communication bearing No. EC/Exc/2020-21/550-52 dated 05.06.2020 issued by respondent No. 2, (herein after for short impugned notice and impugned communication) copy whereof was never furnished to the petitioner alleging in the said impugned notice that it has been observed that the license has been transferred outside the legal heirs/family in violation of the rules.

(2c) It is being further stated by the petitioner in the petition that he has filed supplementary reply against impugned notice on 04.07.2020 while denying the allegation leveled therein consequently withdrawal of the notice was requested thereof.

(2d) Petitioner challenges the impugned Notice dated 06-06-2020 along with impugned communication dated 05-06-2020 inter alia amongst others on the ground that the notice and communication supra have been issued without any jurisdiction and competence in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution in as much as that the respondents are bound by the principles of Promisery Espel and Legitimate expectations.

(3.)Per contra, respondents in their objections filed in opposition to the writ petition refute and controvert the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petition and have sought dismissal of the petition inter alia amongst others on the following premise and grounds: -
(3a) That none of the legal statutory or fundamental rights of the petitioner has been violated which would warrant the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court the petitioner, therefore, deserves outright dismissal.

(3b) That the petitioner has raised disputed question of facts which cannot be adjudicated through the medium of this writ petition, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3c) That the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is grossly misconceived both in law as well as on facts as such, deserves on outright dismissal.

(3d) That the present writ petition does not disclose any infringement of any legal, fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner, so far as the answering respondent is concerned which being sine-quo for maintaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves on outright dismissal.

(3e) That there is no infringement of any fundamental, legal or statutory rights of the petitioner warranting indulgence by the Hon'ble Court, as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3f) That at the outset the answering respondents deny each and every averment made by the petitioner unless the same is specifically admitted by the answering respondent.

(3g) That by virtue of the present writ petition the petitioner has thrown challenge to the Show Cause Notice dated 06-06-2020 simpliciter. It is submitted that the writ petition prima facie is not maintainable as no prejudice or infringement of any rights of the petitioner has occurred due to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The Hon'ble supreme Court has consistently held in that writ petition against Show Cause Notice is premature and therefore deserves to be dismissed."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.