- (1.) HEARD Sri Yashwant Varma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash Tripathi for the petitioner, Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1to 4 and Sri R.R. Agrawal assisted by Sri Murtaza Ali for respondent no.5.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : "i] to issue a suitable writ, order or direction calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 15.7.2014 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure -11) ; ii] to issue a suitable writ, order or direction declaring that the order dated 15.7.2014 does not impinge upon the license granted to the petitioner for the Excise Year 2014 -15; iii] to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering and/or causing any hindrance in the business of the petitioner being carried thereon pursuant to the licence for the retail sale of country liquor granted to it for the Excise Year 2014 -15 ; iv] Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner; v] award the cost of the writ petitioner to the petitioner."
(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the present case are that in the year 2009 -10 a retail country liquor license of the shop ''Sarai Meer Azamgarh' was settled in favour of the respondent no.5 as per provisions of ''Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of License for Retail Sale of Country Liquor ) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'). Her license was renewed from year to year in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules and the relevant Government Policy for the years 2010 -11, 2011 -12, 2012 -13 and 2013 -14. On 2.4.2013 an inspection of her country liquor shop was conducted by the Officers of the Excise Department. On the basis of certain alleged discrepancies/irregularities found in the aforesaid inspection a show cause notice dated 16.4.2013 for cancellation of license was issued by the licensing authority/District Magistrate, Azamgarh and the license was suspended. By an order dated 13.6.2013 the license of respondent no.5 was cancelled by the licensing authority. The respondent no.5 filed an Appeal No.23 of 2013 challenging the order of the licensing authority dated 13.6.2013. The appeal was allowed by the Additional Excise Commissioner (Administration), U.P., vide order dated 15.7.2013 and the matter was remanded to the licensing authority vide order dated 15.7.2013.;