- (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 11641 of 1997 and 9266 of 2002, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the facts and the issue involved in both the petitions are similar. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 9266 of 2002. Prayer in CWP No. 9266 of 2002 is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 27.3.1998, Annexure P.1 to the extent it provides for imposition of penalty for not using 60% new bottles and for quashing the notice dated 22.6.1999, Annexure P.2 and the order dated 18.4.2002, Annexure P.4, passed by respondent No. 2.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No. 9266 of 2002 may be noticed. The petitioner is one of the units of M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company limited which is situated at Yamuna Nagar, whereas the registered office of the company is at Modingar (UP). The said company is sick company under Section 19(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioner unit was engaged in the manufacture of liquor and the same continued upto the imposition of prohibition in the State. It was granted licence for the manufacture of liquor under the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (in short, "the Act") and the rules framed thereunder from time to time. The respondent State in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 57-A of the Act issued a notification dated 27.3.1998, Annexure P.1 fixing the price of liquor. Under the said notification, the distillery was required to use new and old quartz size bottles in the ratio of 60:40 and in case of failure, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana was empowered to impose penalty at the rate of Rs. 1/- per bottle after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. As per notification, the use of the new and old quartz size bottles was to be calculated on quarterly basis under normal circumstances. According to the petitioner, it used new and old quartz size bottles in the ratio of 60:40 as prescribed in the notification. Still the petitioner was served with notice dated 22.6.1999 by respondent No. 2 calling upon it as to why penalty of Rs. 19,96,281/- be not imposed for not using 60% new quartz size bottles as per the notification dated 27.3.1998, Annexure P.1. The petitioner submitted detailed reply dated 20.7.1999 to respondent No. 2, inter alia stating that with effect from 1.4.1998 to 30.6.1998, it had used 51,33,468 new bottles whereas in the notice, the figure of the new bottles used was given as Rs. 48,61,824. According to the petitioner, the notice was issued after the expiry of about three months of the relevant period of financial year. The petitioner averred that had there been any objection to the use of old bottles for the relevant period, it would not have used the old bottles in the absence of availability of the new bottles and it might have shut down the production though it had used the new quartz size bottles from 1.4.1998 to 30.9.1998 much above the prescribed ratio. After considering the matter, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 18.4.2002, Annexure P.4 imposing penalty of Rs. 1/- per bottle for the alleged excess use of old bottles. Hence the instant writ petitions by the writ petitioners.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find merit in the writ petitions.;