AKARSH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants have filed an application for intervening into the matter pointing out several facts and circumstances before this Court but the fact remains that on an application being filed the intervenors, the cognizance has been taken by the Authorities i.e. the Collector and the impugned order has been passed. Thus, virtually the complaint made by them is acted upon. Therefore, the intervenors who are the local residents of the area wherein the liquor shop is being opened has no locus to intervene into the writ petition, placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Karmachari Congress Vs. State of M.P. and others [W.A. No.64/2021] decided on 10/2/2021. In such circumstances, once the complaint filed by the intervenor is already acted upon they don't have any locus to intervene into the writ petition. Accordingly, the intervention application is rejected. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard. Challenge is being made to the order dtd. 11/4/2022 sent on behalf of the respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to shift the Composite Liquor Shop Gorakhpur - I to a place which is having no objection.

(2.) It is argued that only four days time have been granted to the petitioner for doing the needful which is affecting the business of the petitioner to a large extent, without there being any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner. The order has been served upon the petitioner on 12/4/2022 at 7 P.M. It is argued that the petitioner is a rightful owner of the license under the M.P. Excise Act for undertaking the liquor business and after participating in the tender process, he was declared successful bidder for running a Composite Liquor Shop in area Gorakhpur vide order dtd. 31/3/2022. He entered into a rent agreement with one Rahul Khatri and others and has taken three floor building situated at Gorakhpur for a total amount of consideration of Rs.5,00,000.00. The agreement is valid upto 31/3/2022. It is submitted that in pursuance to the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915, the Rules regarding location of any liquor shop is that "no liquor shop shall be deemed to exist within 50 meter radius of any religious institution, academic institution, hospital or a bus stand etc," therefore, prior to finalisation of the shop, verification was got done by the Authorities in the presence of the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Jabalpur whereby it was observed that the distance between the liquor shop and one Wisdom Valley School is 75 meters. It is argued that impugned order does not reflect any reason for issuing a direction to the petitioner to shift the shop in question, coupled with the fact that he was never served with the so called objections which have been raised by the public at large. It is settled legal proposition that in case any order is passed having civil consequences then the opportunity of hearing should have been granted prior to passing such orders. Direction for shifting of shop will be adversely effecting the business of the petitioner and will be causing huge loss to him. Thus, the order is per se illegal. He has drawn attention of this Court to the Gazette notification dtd. 31/3/2018 wherein Rule 2 of Rules as under :- "Any shop for the sale of liquor shall not be situated upto a distance of 50 meters from lawful religious institution, girls school, girls college and lawful girls hostel."

(3.) It is argued that after due verification of the location of the shop, the same has been permitted to be run by the petitioner. The petitioner has already invested huge amount and has also entered into a rent agreement. Once the Authorities have visited the site and has verified that the aforesaid shop is not violating any of the Rules and Regulations of the Excise Act, but all of a sudden on a so called objections raised by the public with respect to the shop which has never communicated to the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed. It is submitted that in identical circumstances, this Court has dealt with the cases wherein similar orders have been passed by the Authorities and the Court has intervened in the matter and has virtually stayed the operation of the orders. He has further pointed out to this Court, the General Rules of allotment and running of liquor shop and has placed reliance upon Rule 2 which says that atleast an opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the shop allottee to substantiate his case, in case of any objection and further upon Clause 2 (Kha) wherein the distance from the objectionable places should be 50 meters. The mode of calculating the distance is also being provided in Clause 4 (Ga) and following the same, the measurement of the distance from the nearest school has been taken. In such circumstances, there is virtually no violation of any of the terms and conditions and rules and regulations.