SHIV SHANKER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2006-11-327
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 21,2006

Shiv Shanker Singh And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri R.M. Saggi and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.6.2006(Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3 on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount from the surety for the period of which shop of the petitioner No. 1 was closed for a period of 22 days i.e. 286 hours, and the shop of the petitioner No.2 was closed for a period of 17 days that is 221 hours, under the orders of the District Excise Officer, Mau.
(3.) The petitioner who are licensees and were granted licences of country liquor shop for the period 2005-06. The petitioners have run their country liquor shops form 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006. A certificate to that effect has also been issued by District Excise Officer, Mau on 25.7.2006. Due to law and order situation, a curfew was imposed in the areas, where the country liquor shops of the petitioners were situated and due to the curfew the shops of the petitioners were closed. The shop of the petitioner No. 1 was closed for 22 days(286 hours), and shop of the petitioner No. 2 was closed for a period of 22 days. A chart regarding closure of the shops and loss of revenue due to the imposition of curfew issued by the District Excise Officer, Mau is dated 14.2.2006. The District Magistrate has written a letter to the Excise Commissioner U.P. at Allahabad recommending the case of the petitioners and for granting remission to the licensees during the period the shops of the areas were closed due to imposition of curfew. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition but the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioners in spite of the recommendation by the District Excise Officer that the petitioners are entitled for remission in respect of minimum surety amount that is basic licence fee.;


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