JUDGEMENT
KESHOTE, J. -
(1.)THE matter is placed for orders on the second stay application but looking to the fact that the matter is of the year 1997 and that a short controversy is involved therein, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)IN the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 31st of January, 1997 Annexure- 11, the order of the respondent. Under this order the respondent dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of interest payable on the guarantee amount. The respondent declined to grant the prayer made for waiver of interest on the ground that the petitioner refused to pay the principal amount of guarantee.
The second prayer made by the petitioner is for issue of a direction to the respondent not to recover any amount from him in relation to Bundi-Hindoli Group of Shops for the Excise License 1995-96.
Third prayer made is for quashing of the action of the respondent by which the amount deposited by him against the principal amount has been later on shown to have been adjusted against interest amount and for declaration thereof null and void.
Shri R. B. Mathur, the learned counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy in the matter to the petitioner. He made reference to Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter shall be referred to as `the Act, 1950' ).
The facts of the case emerge from the memo of writ petition are that excise license was issued by the Excise Department of Bundi-Hindoli Group for the year 1995-96 for Rs. 5,97,06,500/- and for Nenwa Group of shops for Rs. 1,17,00,000/- in the name of petitioner.
(3.)THE petitioner alleged that since the date of grant of excise license, the Administrative authority of the respondent Department at Bundi and the Police did not allow the excise shops to run and created number of hindrances in running thereof. It is stated that the police authorities of the District involved the salesmen of the petitioner in false cases and humiliated by arresting them. THE police authorities also alleged to have seized the excise articles of the petitioner on number of occasions and ordered to close the shops. It is further stated that the respondent Department ordered to change the location of the excise shops and sub-shops notified at the time of grant of licenses and also not approved the locations of the new shops in spite of efforts made by the petitioner. As a result of these alleged illegal activities of the respondent and the police department the petitioner could not stand to his commitment to deposit the license fees in time. THE license period came to an end on 31st of March, 1996. THE case of the petitioner is that he deposited entire amount of exclusive privilege with the respondent Department and not a single penny of the principal amount in relation to license fees for the year 1995-96 of Bundi- Hindoli Group of Shops remained due against the petitioner. THE petitioner grievanced that despite of the fact narrated above the respondent Department, though it was not chargeable, made a demand of the interest of Rs. 12. 87 lacs. He filed an application for waiver of interest amount; that has been rejected under the impugned order and thus the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Department has committed a serious error not to grant waiver of the interest.
It has next been contended that the ground given not to grant the prayer made by the petitioner in his application filed under Section 30-AA of the Act, 1950 is non est.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.