NARAINDAS Vs. JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus, a writ of certiorari, and a writ of prohibition.

(2.) THE petitioner, Mr. Naraindas P. Advani, agreed to become a licensed vendor of country liquor at an auction sale held on the 13th of February, 1950, in respect of a shop at Jodhpur, regarding the description whereof there is some dispute. According to the petitioner, the successful bidder was free to ran the shop at any place in the Ratanada area, and he gave a bid of Rs. 14,000/- for one year from the 1st of April, 1950, on that basis, and paid into the Government Treasury certain sum of money as a deposit required under the Rules. It was alleged that the petitioner decided to run his liquor shop in Bhanwar Lal Sonar Building, where a Government shop existed previously, and on an enquiry by Mr. A. S. Bhatnagar, Inspector, Customs and Excise, respondent No. 2, the petitioner inform-ed him to that effect on the 3rd of April, 1950. It was stated that the licensed vendors of certain other shops in the adjoining areas complained that their sales had been affected by the petitioner's shop being located in Bhanwar Lal Sonar Building, and the officers of the Excise Department directed the petitioner by an order dated the 3rd of April, 1950, Ex. F. 1, to close the shop in Bhanwar Lal Sonar Building and to shift the same to some other place near the Police Lines. On the petitioner's declining to shift his shop, the Inspector reported to Mr. Jagannath N. Purohit, Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Excise, respondent No. 1, recommending that an order be passed to close the shop and to seize the stocks. It was alleged that the Deputy Commissioner directed Mr. B. D. Chopra, Collector of Jodhpur, respondent No. 3, to act accordingly, and the petitioner's request for permission to carry on the shop at Bhanwar Lal Sonar building, which he was entitled to do lawfully, was turned down, and that steps were in contemplation to seize his goods and to close the shop. It was contended that the order to close the shop and to seize the supplies or withhold further supplies was illegal and ultra vires. It was averred that the orders by the Excise Officers, respondents in this case, were not made in good faith but were mala fide, and made with the sole object of depriving the petitioner of his lawful profits in the trade and to put him to serious loss. It was prayed that an order in the nature of the writ of mandamus be issued restraining the respondents from enforcing or executing the order of 3rd April, 1950, which purported to close down the petitioner's shop and to seize his supplies. It was also prayed that the order complained of was- in the nature of a judicial or quasi judicial order, and a writ of certiorari be issued against the respondents calling for the records of the proceedings, and the said order of 3rd April be quashed. It was further prayed that a writ of prohibition be issued against the respondents preventing them from taking further steps in execution of the order. It was finally prayed that this Court should order the three respondents to permit the petitioner to run his country liquor shop at Bhanwar Lal Sonar building and to allow him the supplies.

(3.) AS stated above, the approval of the premises where sale of liquor can take place is in the discretion of the Excise Authorities and this Court cannot compel such authorities to exercise that discretion in a particular way unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion. In the present case, the matter in still under consideration of the Collector.