- (1.) The petitioner, who has been a licensee of country liquor shop from the year 2003 to 2009, has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Excise Commissioner, U.P. whereby, security has been forfeited on the ground that the petitioner could not lift the country liquor in the month of March, 2009 to the extent of minimum guaranteed quantity (in short MGQ), provided by the authorities. The petitioner has also impugned the Rule 2 (c) and Rule 2 (o) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licences of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002 (in short as 2002 Rules), with a prayer to declare it ultra-vires.
(2.) The petitioner was excise licensee, granted license to sell country liquor in the year 2003-2004. The license was continued and extended upto the year 2008-2009. In lieu of license granted by the State, the petitioner furnished security money amounting to Rs.5,22081/-. However, in spite of lapse of license tenure when the security money was not refunded, he moved an application dated 20.5.2009 followed by reminders dated 23.3.2010 and 15.4.2010 under the Right to Information Act that why the security money deposited by him with regard to country liquor shop has not been refunded.
(3.) In response to the application moved under Right to Information Act, 2005, the Public Relation Officer/District Excise Officer, Varanasi, by his letter dated 2.6.2010 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition), informed that in view of the Circular dated 9.3.2009 of the Excise Commissioner, U.P., by the impugned letter dated 21.2.2010, issued by the Finance Controller, the security has been forfeited since the petitioner has not lifted the MGQ of the month of March,2009. After receipt of letter dated 2.6.2010 , being aggrieved with it, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.6359 (M/B) of 2010, which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 9.3.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to prefer the representation to the Excise Commissioner U.P., who in turn, was directed to decide it in accordance with law by passing a reason order. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted fresh representation to the respondent No.2 on 23.7.2010 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition), which has been decided by the impugned order dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), indicating therein that since the petitioner has not lifted MGQ in the month of March, 2009, the security of Rs.5,22,081/- has been forfeited. It has been alleged that the District Excise Officer Varanasi has informed by letter dated 14.8.2010 that in the month of March, 2009 MGQ prescribed for the petitioner licensee, was 4187.50 bulk litres but the petitioner has lifted only 887.61 bulk litres. Hence in terms of MGQ, the petitioner has paid less license fee to the extent of Rs.2,56,088.56 P.;