SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is a licence holder for country liquor, I. M. F. L. and Beer for the year 2000-2001 w. e. f. 26. 5. 1999 to 31. 3. 2000. According to him, he was granted licence for the shops including the Mokhampura shop. THE said shop was approved by an order dated 27. 5. 99 Annex. 21. THE liquor shop was running from 27. 5. 99 till 14. 12. 99. However, the licence for the said shop was cancelled and the respondent Excise Department registered a criminal case on 14. 12. 99 and also seized the liquor from the said shop. THE F. I. R. is at Annex. 3.
(2.) THE grievance made by the petitioner in this petition is that without giving any opportunity of hearing or notice to show cause, the licence was cancelled and the sale of liquor is stopped verbally. Thus, the respondents are acting high handedly against the petitioner and without any order in writing, the petitioner's shop at Mokhampura is illegally closed. It was, therefore, prayed that the verbal orders issued by the respondents of not running the shop at Mokhampura be quashed and set aside and the respondents be restrained from interfering with the running of liquor shop at Mokhampura. On 8. 5. 2000, after hearing learned counsel for Mr. Champawat for the petitioner by a speaking order notice was ordered to be issued, which I would like to reproduce which is as under:- " Learned counsel Mr. Champawat states that as per the verbal instructions given by the respondents, the petitioner has closed down his shops. In view of the above, notice is ordered to be issued to the respondents. Notice returnable on 15. 5. 2000. The respondents may enquire as to whether the shops in question is really closed down by the petitioner or not and made a definite statement before this Court on the returnable date of the notice. On that day, the respondents shall also produce the order of closing down of the shops in writing. Notice be served by dasti as well as by registered post A. D. at the cost of the petitioner. " On 15. 05. 2000 at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, it was put up on 18. 5. 2000. On 18. 5. 2000, Mr. Maheshwari for the respondents filed reply affidavit and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, it was ordered to be placed on 22. 5. 2000. On 22. 5. 2000, the petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, order was reserved. At the time of hearing of this petition, on the basis of reply affidavit, learned counsel Mr. Maheshwari for the respondents vehemently submitted that this Court should dismiss this petition on the ground of false statement made in the petition. It was pointed out in the reply affidavit that the petitioner was granted licence to run liquor shop at Mokhampura but he had opened the shop for retail sale at a different place that the place and location at Mokhampura which was approved by the department, therefore, proceedings were initiated against him on 14. 12. 99. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact from this Court about the change effected by him regarding the place and location of the liquor shop at Mokhampura, therefore, this petition should be dismissed without going into the merits of the case. However, by way of an affidavit in rejoinder, the petitioner has tried to explain that the petitioner himself has annexed criminal proceedings registered against him on 14. 12. 99 as per Annex. 3 and the petitioner had not suppressed any material facts from this Court.
(3.) IT is true that the petitioner has annexed the F. I. R. at Annex. 3 dated 14. 12. 99 but it was never stated in the petition that the said F. I. R. was filed against the petitioner for changing the place and location of the liquor shop. In my considered opinion, there was a material suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner in not bringing to the notice of this Court that the F. I. R. at Annex. 3 was registered against the petitioner for selling the liquor in the shop at a different place and location than the place and location approved by the department. If it was pointed out in the petition, this Court might not have entertained this petition and issued notice to the respondents, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this petition is required to be dismissed. Learned Counsel Mr. Champawat for the petitioner submitted hat it was never the intention of the petitioner to mis-lead this Court by non-stating the fact in the petition that his shop was ordered to be closed because it was run at the different place and location than the place and location for which the licence was granted. He submitted that at the most it can be said to be an incorrect statement for which this Court should not dismiss the petition. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vandana Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ). Co-incidentally, writ petition no. 707/99 filed by the petitioner Vandana had come up for admission before me wherein specific contention was raised on oath and with all vehemence, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. K. L. Jasmatia, who remained as an Additional Advocate General for several years, that there was no such provision either under the Act or the Rules regarding the filing up the post of Zila Pramukh by nomination and it could be filled up only by election. ;