PEERULAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal filed by Peerulal under Section 18 of he Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against an order of a Single Judge of this Court dated July 14, 1980, by which the writ petition of the petitioner for restraining the Excise and Prohibit on Officer, In charge of District Jodhpur from extending the period of licence in favour of respondent No. 4 for sale of country liquor to authorised persons under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act No 17 of 1969, and for quashing the orders, if any that might have been passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 during the pendency of the writ petition and for issuance of any direct on or order that might be deemed expedient in the interests of justice, was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, out of which this special appeal arises, may be stated as follows: The petitioner had been dealing in country liquor under a licence issued to him under the Rajasthan Excise Act in the past. At the tine of filing the writ petition, the petitioner had no licence to deal in country liquor but he was interested in obtaining the licence for sale of country liquor. Act No. 17 of 1969 (Rajasthan Prohibition Act) came into force in Jodhpur District with effect from April 1, 1978. After coming into force of this Act, no new permits for the retail sale of the country liquor were granted to any private person. The consumers who were authorised to purchase liquor on the basis of the permits issued In their favour by the competent authority purchased it from the Sale Depot of the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., only. In April 1980 the Excise Commissioner directed the Prohibition Officer Incharge of District Jodhpur to recommend the names of the persons who had been having licence in 1978 when the Prohibition Act came in to force, for the grant of licence for the retail sale of country liquor to authorised consumers, Accordingly the name of respondent No. 4 was recommended by respondent No. 3 for grant of such a licence. This recommendation was made without inviting applications from the public or from any other person interested in obtaining licence for the retail sale of country liquor to authorised parson, On the recommendation of respondent No 3, respondent No. 2 issued a letter of authority to respondent No. 4 authorising the latter to purchase and sell country liquor in retail to persons authorised to purchase the same in Jodhpur City. It was, however, mentioned in the letter of authority issued in favour of respondent No. 4 that the licence would be issued later on. The petitioner came to know on May 1, 1980, that a licence had been granted in favour of respondent No. 4. He thereupon, approached respondent No. 2 through his Counsel and requested him to give a copy of the licence. Respondent No. 2 did not furnish any copy of the licence. The petitioner, therefore, filed writ petition No. 989 of 1980 before this Court which was admitted on May 6, 1980 and prayed for stay of the operation of the licence that was granted to respondent No. 4. This Court issued notice of the stay application to the respondents. Later on, the petitioner came to know that respondent No 2 and 3 were bent upon extending the term of the licence or the authority letters issued in favour of respondent No 4 and for this purpose they have obtained application from respondent No 4 and others. The petitioner apprehended that orders for extending the period of licence or the authorization would be passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 before June 15, 1980 As according to him, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had no jurisdiction to issue any licence for retail sale country liquor to respondent No. 4 or to extend the period of the licence that bad already been issued in favour of respondent No. 4, the petitioner bed no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court by way of this writ petition, and so he moved this court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge Peeru Mal, petitioner, has preferred this special appeal. It will not be cut of place to mention that respondent No 4 entered a caveat and desired to contest the special appeal at the admission stage Hence, the Special Appeal was put for hearing arguments on the admission s age on July (sic)0, 1980 and then on Aug. 6 1980. Meantime, Mr. B.L. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant, filed an application for leave to amend the memo of the appeal, which was accepted by us on August 18, 1980. after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents. Consequently, the learned Counsel for the appellant filed the amended memo of the special appeal and arguments were heard by us on August 19, 1980, a the admission stage Upon perusal of the record and hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of he view that this special appeal is not worth admission and the contentions rained before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant are clearly untenable.