R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) BY this petition petitioner-licencee under Medical and Toilet Preparations Act seeks quashing of orders dated 16th May, 1979 and 2nd June, 1977 passed by the State Government and Excise Commissioner respectively. The petitioner was granted a licence in form L-I in the year 1968 with a quota of 4,000 litres of rectified spirit per month. This licence continued to be renewed till 1975-76. On 16th December, 1976 a show-cause notice was given by the Commissioner for certain irregularities noticed and an opportunity was afforded to petitioner to furnish explanation for acts of omission within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. To this reply was submitted by petitioner on 30th December, 1976. On 2nd June, 1977 an order was communicated to the petitioner that the Excise Commissioner after considering the explanation was not satisfied that his licence could be renewed for 1976-77. Against this order petitioner filed an appeal to the State Government without any success. In appeal it was alleged that the order passed by the Excise Commissioner was contrary to rule 87 as it was neither a speaking order nor the order was communicated to him. Both the contentions did not find favour and it was held that not only the order was speaking one but it was communicated as well to the petitioner.
(2.) AGAINST this order petitioner filed writ petition on 30th July, 1979 which was admitted on 31st July, 1979. No interim order was granted but the hearing of the petition was expedited on 10th November, 1982. The respondent that is opposite party nos. 1 to 3 on whose behalf notice of the petition was accepted on 30th July, 1979 did not file any counter affidavit. On 19-9-1980 a Division Bench of this Court passed an order on the expedite application to be listed after six months. On 10th November, 1982 hearing of the petition was expedited. But no counter-affidavit was filed. As the petition was not beard for two years the petitioner filed an application on 2-1-1984 that his premises may be released. The application came up for orders on 3-1-1984. As hearing of the petition had been expedited as far back as 1982 it was considered expedient to decide the petition instead of deciding the stay application which could have taken the same time. It, however, transpired that no counter-affidavit had been filed till then. The hearing was deferred on request of learned Standing Counsel who was granted two weeks and no more to file the counter-affidavit. When the petition was taken up today the learned Standing Counsel again made a prayer for grant of further time. As is obvious there was no justification not to file it for more than four years. Orders expediting hearing of petition in 1982 must have been passed in presence of Standing Counsel. The report of office on 19th November, 1982 that no counter-affidavit has been filed too must have been noticed by the office of Standing Counsel. And yet no counter-affidavit was filed. In any case when time was granted on 2nd January and yet the opposite parties failed then there is no justification to grant any further indulgence. From the order of the State Government it is apparent that the order deciding the dispute in consequence of show cause notice sent by the Commissioner was decided on 31st May, 1977. This order does not appear to have been communicated to the petitioner. What was communicated to it was an order dated 2nd June, 1977 which appears to be an intimation that the application for renewal of licence has been rejected. Copy of the order, however, was not served on petitioner. It has not even been produced before this Court. Order dated 2nd June, 1977 is only an intimation of order rejecting licence. In absence of the order it has to be accepted that petitioner's licence was cancelled with a non-speaking order and this was contrary to sub-rule (2) of rule 87 which requires the order to be in writing and to, 'Specify the reasons for suspension and revocation.' The submission of learned Standing Counsel that cancellation or revocation of licence was the satisfaction of Commissioner and it was satisfied from the record that petitioner's licence should not be renewed then the order cannot be held to be vitiated merely because he did not give detail reasons cannot be accepted. In the show cause notice it was mentioned that petitioner had not been paying excise duty for the year 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 in accordance with rules. This was not accepted in the reply sent by petitioner. For whatever worth it certainly needed adjudication. It could not have been held by the State Government or by the Commissioner that it was not necessary to give any reason for rejecting the explanation given by petitioner It has been argued by learned Standing Counsel that as is apparent from show cause notice the reason for refusing to renew licence was in violation of the rules framed by the Excise Commissioner, therefore, even if there was some technical error the petitioner was not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. The argument again does not appear to be sound as it is doubtful if the petitioner's licence could have been cancelled even if facts mentioned in it would have been established.
(3.) IN the result the petition is allowed. The orders passed by State Government and Excise Commissioner are quashed. The Commissioner is directed to decide the controversy after affording an opportunity to petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to its costs. Petition allowed.;