RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) The order under challenge is suspension order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Excise Commissioner, U.P., Prayagraj.
(3.) The petitioner, who is serving on the post of Excise Inspector has submitted her joining on 3.7.2019 at Sector-2, Lucknow (Annexure No.8). The allegation relating to cutting/ overwriting on the licence was done on 9.5.2018 when admittedly the petitioner was not discharging her duties at the place in question. Not only the above, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2019 passed in Misc. Bench No.32542 of 2019 has dismissed the writ petition of Aanchal Shanker, who has prayed that the authorities be directed to restrain opposite party no.8 for operating liquor shop from the place different than for which the licence was granted. In the said writ petition, opposite party no.7 was the present petitioner. This Court dismissed the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2019 and the fact relating to overwriting and cutting has been considered and it has been observed that since the issue is being enquired into, therefore, this Court has not commented on that point. Relevant portion of the order dated 27.11.2019 is being reproduced herein below:- "The allegation of the petitioner is against respondent no. 8 for operating the liquor shop from a location different for which licence was renewed. The licence earlier granted to the opposite party no. 8 was for the location near Kapoorthala-Purania Road. The allegation of overwriting in the licence has also been made. In reference to the grievance of the petitioner, official respondents have already taken action by issuing a show cause notice to opposite party no.8. The fact aforesaid was noticed while hearing the writ petition preferred by opposite party no. 8 making allegation against the petitioner for operation of Model Shop in violation of the terms and conditions of the licence. In the said writ petition, the official respondent nos. 1 to 7 stated about the action against the petitioner as well as opposite party no. 8. Since the action has already been initiated, a direction of the nature prayed by the petitioner need not to be given. The issue whether there are overwriting and cutting on the licence or not would also be decided by the official respondents, otherwise, the side opposite no. 8 indicated change of location while seeking renewal. In any case the issue is pending, thus, it needs no comment." ;