Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjodh Singh vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 11 April, 2014
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Jaspal Singh
CWP No. 6947 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6947 of 2014
Date of Decision: 11.4.2014
Ranjodh Singh
....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.
PRESENT: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the entire amount lying with them in the form of security deposit in lieu of the licence granted to him along with interest and damages on account of loss of business.
2. Government of Haryana issued the Excise Policy (Annexure P-1) for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The bids were invited by the respondents for the grant of liquor vends at different locations. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his bid and was allotted the bid of CL(L-14A), Group No.21, District Sonepat for the year 2013-14. The total amount for the said vend for the period from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014 was ` 1,13,87,500/- which was to be paid in 12 monthly Singh Gurbachan 2014.04.21 12:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 6947 of 2014 -2- installments. The petitioner deposited a sum of ` 23,91,375/- towards 21% security deposit and ` 2,00,000/- as additional security. He deposited the installments till January 2014. The petitioner got renewed the licence for two vends and surrendered one vend and, therefore, the security amount of ` 6,08,988/- and ` 66,666/- as additional security was lying with the respondents. One Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing CWP No. 25777 of 2012 in this Court. This Court vide order dated 30.7.2013 (Annexure P-2) ordered for removal of all the unauthorized access, sign board etc. of the liquor shops and directed to implement the letter dated 4.8.2012 issued by the National Highway Authority of India. Thereafter, some of the liquor vendors moved an application for impleading them as a party as their rights were being seriously prejudiced. This Court vide order dated 13.9.2013 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the application. However, it was observed that in the event of the closure of the liquor vend, the proportionate fee recovered would be refunded back. Thereafter, the respondents vide letter dated 11.12.2013 directed to take permission from the concerned authority for having right to access to the National Highway. This Court vide order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure P-4) held the said letter to be in violation of the directions issued by this Court. After the passing of the said order, the letter dated 11.12.2013 was withdrawn by the respondents. As per the policy, the licencee had to get their licence renewed for the year 2014-15 between 15.2.2014 to 28.2.2014 and on failure to do so, the security amount of the licence fee was to be forfeited and the vends would have to be re-allotted. The respondents vide public notice (Annexure P-5) directed the petitioner as well as other liquor vend holders to get their licences renewed for the Singh Gurbachan 2014.04.21 12:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 6947 of 2014 -3- year 2014-15 upto 8.4.2014 at 5% more than the licence fee for 2013-14 failing which the security deposit of the licence would stand forfeited and the liquor vend would be re-allotted. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 8.4.2014 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.3 but no action has so far been taken thereon. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.3 to take a decision on the representation dated 8.4.2014 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
April 11, 2014 (JASPAL SINGH)
gbs JUDGE
Singh Gurbachan
2014.04.21 12:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh