ASHOK LENKA Vs. RISHI DIKSHIT
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CHHATTISGARH)
Decided on April 21,2006

ASHOK LENKA Appellant
VERSUS
RISHI DIKSHIT Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAJESH GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-324] [REFERRED TO]
Y RAJITHA REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF IANDHRA PRADEESH [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
TUSHANT VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
DURGESH KUMAR PRASAD VS. THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PATNA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
R RAJANGAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CHEPAUK [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-585] [REFERRED]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
Laxmi Charan Patra, aged about 32 years, S/o. Shyam Sundar Patra, At: Jiura, Via: Pattapur, P.O. Gangapur, P.S. Pattapur, Dist: Ganjam VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2012-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
AHEIBAM ROMEL SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMA LIMITED VS. SAINT GOBAIN GLASS INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN PATHAK VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2013-6-81] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR PATEL [LAWS(MPH)-2008-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
HEADMISTRESS AND CORRESPONDENT JAYARANI HIGH SCHOOL VS. UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-641] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER VS. YASH PAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-986] [REFERRED]
SAKET KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-193] [REFERRED TO]
SALAM ABDUL HANIFSHAIBHAI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(GJH)-2007-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
C ARAVINDHAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-220] [REFERRED TO]
NEPAL SINGH RAJPUT VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR BROTHERS (CHEMISTS) PVT. LTD. VS. THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-148] [REFERRED TO]
ATULKUMAR NIRANJANBHAI DAVE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-12-338] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-11-91] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. UNNI [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
GANDHARBA BEHERA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
YASHPAL VS. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
ROBUSTAA (HYGLOW CAFE) REP BY ITS PARTNER N VISHAL KUMAR VS. THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CHENNAI RIPON BUILDING & OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-164] [REFERRED]
KUMAR BROTHERS (CHEMISTS) PVT. LTD VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2006-4-229] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. DEBABRATA TIWARI [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
A K GAUTAM VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-113] [REFERRED TO]
LOTUS RECREATION CLUB (REGD SOCIETY) VS. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (EXCISE) [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-469] [REFERRED]
MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2015-3-152] [REFERRED TO]
V.VENKATRAMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2016-11-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THE Appellants are before us in the second round. THEy, except the State of Chhattisgarh, were granted excise licences. Grant of such licences indisputably is governed by the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (for short "the Act"). On or about 15-3-2002, the State Government under 'the Act' made rules known as Chhattisgarh Excise Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country/Foreign Liquor Rules, 2002 (for short "the Rules").
The State issued notices inviting tenders for grant of licences under the Rules. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said notices inviting tenders about 2,64,703 applications were filed. The grant of licences in favour of the Appellants in some of the appeals came to be questioned before the Chhattisgarh High Court. By reason of a judgment dated 31-3-2005, a Division Bench of the said Court allowed the writ petition and directed cancellation of the licences. Appeals thereagainst were filed before this Court. Interim orders were passed therein as a result whereof licensees continued to carry on their business. This Court, however, while refraining itself from setting aside the entire selection process thought it fit to ask the respective District Level Committees to consider the matter relating to grant of such licences afresh. Having regard to the actions of the statutory functionaries, the exercises as regard scrutiny so as to arrive at a satisfaction that the requirement of the Rules visa-vis selection process were required to be undertaken by the Selection Committees. They were directed to do so afresh.

We would advert to the said directions a little later. However, we at this juncture, may notice that, according to the State, in terms of the directions of this Court, the District Level Committee under the strict supervision of the Chief Secretary as also the Commissioner of Excise went into the said exercise over again and found that the licensees were not only eligible therefor but also fulfilled other conditions laid down in the Rules. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners Respondents, filed objections before the District Level Committee. The said objections were rejected. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the writ petitioners Respondents filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court. The State in the meanwhile issued a notification effecting an amendment in Rule 9 of the Rules in terms of a notification dated 22-3-2005. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT In the writ petition, the following reliefs were prayed for :

"1. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to send for the entire records from the respondents and district committees in regard to the compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and observance of the statutory rules and all such other relevant and complete record as are in their possession leading to the affirmation of the selection of the select candidates.

2. The respondents 1 to 12 be directed to satisfy this Hon'ble Court regarding the compliance of the mandatory directions as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dikshit.

3. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing and annulling the entire selection of respondents 13 to 89 and also quashing the temporary licences by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 12 to make selection strictly in accordance with law, rules and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, afresh.

4. That the contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondents 2 to 12 for the non- compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court."

(3.)BEFORE the High Court, the questions raised by the parties inter alia were : (i) The permanent addresses of the persons in whose favour licences were granted were not properly verified. (ii) The temporary addresses given by them were wrong and in that view of the matter scrutiny of their applications could not be carried out. (iii) Provisions of Rule 9(d)(iii) in terms whereof criminal antecedents not only of the applicants but also of their family members were required to be verified, had not been complied with. According to the State, however, there was no necessity to verify the criminal background of the family members of the licensees as a mere error had crept in in the English version of the notification which stood clarified by issuing another notification dated 5-7-2005.
Before the High Court, the parties produced a large number of documents. It is not in dispute that 191 persons had been granted licences. Before the High Court, however, 65 licensees were made parties and 126 were not. The private respondents also filed their counter affidavits contending that the allegations made in the writ petition were incorrect. Several instances of alleged irregularities on the part of the District Level Committee in the matter of proper scrutiny of the contents of the applications filed by the licensees had been brought on record. The State appears to have filed documents containing approximately 3000 pages in order to show that the directions of this Court had been complied with, in letter and spirit. In reply to the said counter affidavit, the writ petitioners filed a rejoinder to which we shall refer to hereinafter. We may, however, notice that the State in purported response to the said rejoinder affidavit filed by the writ petitioners filed an additional affidavit dealing with the contentions raised therein.



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