Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vishal Goswami vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 25 July, 2018
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 1253 of 2018.
Reserved on : 10.7.2018.
Decided on: 25.7.2018.
Vishal Goswami. ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ......Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Abhilasha
Kaundal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Vikas Rathore
and Mr. Narinder Guleria, Addl.
AGs, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Anup Rattan,
Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
In this petition order Annexure P-1 whereby the site at Macleodganj district Kangra the petitioner has chosen to run the liquor vend (L-2) allotted to him for the year 2018-19 has 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 2been rejected with a direction to select a new site/premises acceptable to M/S J.R. Wines, respondent No. 5 herein and shift .
the vend to such newly selected site in Macleodganj is under challegne. The allotment of liquor vend (L-2 Bhagsu Road, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra) in favour of respondent No. 5 has also been sought to be cancelled on the grounds, inter-alia that one of its partner namely Ranjeet Singh is a defaulter and the said respondent has allegedly even not deposited the security i.e. 5% of the total licence fee in terms of condition No. 2.21 to the Excise Announcements Annexure P-3 issued for the Allotment of Retail Excise vends by draw of Lots during the current year 2018-2019.
2. The Announcements contain the procedure required to be followed for making the allotment of liquor vends in the State. The list of L-2 vends for Kangra district is Annexure-C to the Announcements. The L-2 vends in dispute in this list are at serial No. I i.e. Bhagsunag and serial No. 6 Macleodganj. While petitioner has applied for allotment of L-2 vend at Macleodganj, the private respondent (R. No. 5) for same vend at Bhagsunag.
As per the final quota and Retail Excise duty list Annexure P-5 the L-2 at Macleodganj has been nomenclatured as "Macleodganj"
without any suffixes and prefixes whereas the L-2 vend Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road at Bhagsu road meaning thereby that the liquor vend L-2 allotted to the petitioner has to be made ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 3 functional in Macleodganj whereas the L-2 at a site on Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road.
.
3. Consequent upon their applications on draw of Lots L-2 Macleodganj was allotted to the petitioner, whereas L-2 Bhagsu Road to respondent No. 5. Besides L-2 Bhagsu Road the respondent No. 5 has also been allotted L-14 Macleodganj. The L-2 allotted in favour of the petitioner is Unit No. I "Macleodganj"
r to and it was allotted to him at a cost of `2,30,76,298/-. The L-2 "Bhagsu Road" and L-14 "Macleodganj" Unit No. II allotted to respondent No. 5 have been priced at `3,61,11,275/-. The petitioner on allotment of the vend started operating the same from Macleodganj Main Square whereas respondent No. 5 at the previous site I.e. a place situated on Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road.
The respondent-department vide corrigendum dated 4/5-5-2018 Annexures P-8/P-9 has changed the location of L-2 Unit-I allotted to the petitioner and L-2+L-14 Unit-II allotted to respondent No. 5 from Macleodganj to Macleodganj Temple Road and Macleodganj Main Square, respectively and thereby shifted the L-2 vend allotted to the petitioner to Macleodganj Temple Road whereas the L-2 vend allotted to respondent No. 5 to Macleodganj Main Square.
4. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing civil writ petition No. 759 of 2018. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, learned Counsel during the course of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 4 proceedings in that writ petition has stated at bar that respondent No. 5 is not interested in shifting the L-2 and L-14 .
allotted to it from the present site I.e.Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road to Macleodganj Main Square. This Court also noticed that in terms of condition Nos. 10.2 and 10.5(II) of the Announcements the site in the area to which the vend has been allotted required to be approved from the respective Additional/Joint/Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner concerned.
corrigendum as issued has been quashed vide judgment r Therefore, the Annexure P-2 passed in that writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Excise and Taxation of Himachal Pradesh, the 2nd respondent, for approval of the site from where he intend to make L-2 allotted to him functional. This judgment reads as follows:
"...........................2. Now, if coming to the claim of the petitioner that he has made the L-2 vend allotted to him functional at Macleodganj Main Square, the same hardly carry any substance for the reason that he has not obtained the approval as required in terms of Conditions No. 10.2 and 10.5(ii) of the announcements of excise allotments/renewals for the year 2018-2019.
3. It is apparent from the perusal of the above condition that an allottee shall have to arrange for a site and also the salesmen and get the same approved from the respective ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 5 Additional/Joint/Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner of the Zone concerned. The .
petitioner, admittedly, has not sought the approval of the existing site where the vend presently is functioning. The vend though is still functioning there, however, pursuant to the interim order passed in this writ petition on 2nd May, 2018.
4. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to have sought the approval of the site from the respondent-department before making the same functional. Therefore, when no approval was obtained, there was no occasion to the respondents to have issued the corrigendum, Annexure P-7. The corrigendum, being uncalled for, is accordingly ordered to be quashed.
5. Consequently, the writ petition is ordered to be finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Excise and Taxation, Himachal Pradesh, the second respondent, for approval of the site from where he intend to make his liquor vend functional, within three days from today. The Commissioner shall take a decision in the matter thereafter keeping in mind the viability, successful and fair operation of the vend by 26th May, 2018, positively. Till then, the interim order to continue..............................."
5. Consequent upon the judgment (Annexure P-2) supra passed by this Court in previously instituted writ petition the matter came to be decided by Financial Commissioner (Excise) ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 6 Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Since this Court has directed the Commissioner to take a decision in the matter keeping in mind .
the viability, successful and fair operation of the vends allotted to the petitioner and private respondents. Therefore, the Commissioner while passing the impugned order Annexure P-1 did not find the present site from where the petitioner is running his liquor vend by shifting the same from the previous site which was situated at a distance of 500 meters therefrom.
in view of the distance between the two vends decreased r Being so, substantially and the Commissioner on finding that the survival of both the vends is in danger has directed the petitioner to arrange for another site at Macleodganj on his own with the consent of respondent No. 5 and shift his vend there. The approval of the site so selected be obtained thereafter from the competent authority.
6. It is this order which has been assailed on the grounds, inter-alia, that the same has been passed with the only ideal to favour respondent No. 5. Also that the corrigendum Annexure P-9 has been issued to achieve the similar object i.e. to favour respondent No. 5. The L-2 Bhagsu Road allotted to respondent No. 5 has been renamed as L-2 Macleodganj Main Square simply to accommodate respondent No. 5 in the business of liquor. It has been submitted that Macleodganj is Ward No. 3 of Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala whereas Bhagsunag is ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 7 Ward No. 2. The petitioner, as such, is legally entitled to run his vend from Macleodganj, the present site. The vend allotted to .
respondent No. 5 cannot be renamed as Macleodganj Main Square as it was sanctioned and allotted to be opened at a site on Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road. The L-2 allotted to the petitioner has been priced at a very heavy cost as compared to that of private respondent. Therefore, any change in the site of the vend allotted to him would certainly result in huge financial loss.
In view of one of the partner namely Ranjeet Singh of respondent No. 5 is a defaulter and the said respondent even not deposited the security i.e. 5% of the total cost at which the liquor vend has been priced at the time of allotment, therefore, on this score also, the allotment of L-2 on Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road in favour of the said respondent is contrary to the terms and conditions in the announcements, hence the same has been sought to be cancelled.
7. The respondent-State in short reply to the writ petition has reiterated that the site from where the petitioner presently is running his liquor vend is nearer to the site of respondent No. 5 on Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road. As it was not viable for both the vends to survive, therefore, the Commissioner has rightly directed the petitioner to choose another site and shift the vend there at his own.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 88. The respondent No. 5 in separate reply has, however, denied the contents of the writ petition being wrong. As per its .
version the vend (L-2 Macleodganj) previously was being run from a premises situated on Temple Road Macleodganj i.e. at a distance of 500 meters from the present site. The corrigendum Annexure P-9 being already quashed by this Court in the previously instituted writ petition could have not been pressed in service by the petitioner.
It is also submitted that as per the terms and conditions of Announcements a Unit as a whole has been allotted during auction. Therefore, while the petitioner has purchased Unit No. I for a sum of `2.31 crores (approximately), the respondent No. 5 has purchased its unit in a sum of `3.61 crores (approximately). It is, therefore, denied that the cost of the Unit purchased by the petitioner is higher as compared to that of respondent No. 5. The liquor vends allotted to respondent No. 5 was previously being run on Macleodganj-
Bhagsu road. The said respondent has, therefore, not shifted the site and on allotment of the same during the current year i.e. 2018-2019 also has made the same functional from that very site. It is, however, the petitioner who has shifted the site of the liquor vend allotted to him from Macleodganj Temple Road to Macleodganj Main Square and thereby reduced the financial viability of the liquor vend allotted to respondent No. 5. It has been specifically pointed out in the reply that the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 9 seems to be aggrieved from the observation "........... He may choose sites/houses mutually acceptable to the .
respondents............." , the same according to respondent No. 5 may be deleted from the impugned order Annexure P-1.
9. In rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, the petitioner has reiterated the contentions he already raised in the writ petition and also further substantiated the security i.e. 5% of the averments qua Ranjeet Singh one of the partner of respondent No. 5 is a defaulter and the said respondent failed to deposit the bid amount in terms of the Announcements.
10. After hearing arguments and before dictating judgment, it transpired that neither respondent-State nor respondent No. 5 has controverted the averments in the writ petition and rejoinder that one of the partner of respondent No. 5 was a defaulter and that the said respondent had even not deposited 5% of the bid amount also, therefore, on the prayer made by the respondents they were permitted to file reply/sur-
rejoinder. Consequently, the respondent-State has filed short reply to answer the averments in the writ petition hereinabove, whereas respondent No. 5 has controvered the same by way of filing sur-rejoinder.
11. It has been clarified that one of the partner of respondent No. 5 Ranjeet Singh was partner of M/S Vineet ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 10 Khanna and Company during the previous year i.e. 2017-2018.
Since the said company could not open few of its vends and .
those opened had also to be closed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, therefore, approached this Court by filing Civil Writ petition No. 2590 of 2017. The order passed in this petition is Annexure R-1 to the reply filed on behalf of respondent-State, whereas Annexure-SA1 to sur-rejoinder. The order reveal that in the interim the respondents have been directed not to charge licence fee from the petitioner in respect of those vends which on account of the judgment of the Apex Court either stood closed or could not at all be opened. As regard 5% of the bid amount the same was deposited vide E-
treasury challans Annexures SA-4 (colly) dated 19.3.2018 whereas security deposited vide FDR dated 29.3.2018 Annexure SA-5.
12. The claim of the petitioner to quash the impugned order Annexure P-1 has thus to be determined in this background.
13. It is undisputed that petitioner is an allottee/licensee to whom foreign liquor vend 'L-2 Mcleodganj' has been allotted for the year 2018-19 and respondent No. 5 has been allotted liquor vend 'L-2 Bhagsu Road' along with liquor vend 'L-14 Mcleodganj'.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 1114. The ground of challenge that corrigendum whereby Unit-2 i.e. L-2 and L-14 Bhagsu Road has been shifted to .
Macleodganj Main Square to the detrimental of the petitioner is no more available to him for the reasons that as per the judgment Annexure P-2 passed in the previously instituted writ petition we have already quashed the same. Not only this, but learned Counsel representing respondent No. 5 during the course of proceedings in the said writ petition had stated at bar that the said respondent is no more interested in shifting L-2 and L-14 from the site on Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road to Macleodganj Main Square. Therefore, the grievance to this effect brought to this Court in this writ petition is without any substance.
15. Now if coming to the locations for which the liquor vends have been allotted to the petitioner and private respondent, there is no quarrel so as to the site of the petitioner is "Macleodganj" whereas that of the respondent No. 5 on "Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road" Dharamshala, District Kangra, (HP).
There is again no dispute so as to respondent No. 5 is running the vends allotted to it from the previous year's site itself i.e. Macleodganj-Bhagsu Road. However, petitioner at his own and without getting his site approved from the competent authority in the respondent department had shifted the same to Macleodganj Main Square from Macleodganj Temple Road. As a matter of fact this vend was being operated during the previous ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 12 year i.e. 2017-18 from Macleodganj-Temple Road. Therefore, respondent No. 5 being under legitimate expectation that the .
petitioner will operate the vend during the current year also from that very location has not changed its previous year site from where it was operating the vends i.e. L-14 and sub vend L-2 (now upgraded as L-2). The map Annexure R5/A and R5/B to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 depicts the location of L-
2Macleodganj during the year 2017-18 before and after the judgment passed by the Supreme Court. The same was located at Macleodganj Main Square before the order of the Supreme Court whereas shifted to Temple Road Macleodganj after such order. The L-2 Bhagsu Road sub vend and L-14 Bhagsu Road has also been shown in this map. The petitioner during this year has shifted the vend at his own to Macleodganj Main Square as shown in the map Annexure R5/B which, however, has not been approved by the competent authority and rather rejected vide impugned order Annexure P-1 and rightly so because from Macleodganj Main Square the distance up to Bhagsu Road where the liquor vends of respondent No. 5 are situated has reduced considerably i.e. by 400 meters because in the map Annexure R5/B the distance in between temple road (the old site) and Macleodganj Main Square (the new one) is 400 meters. Both vends as such have come closure to each other. The anxiety of the respondent No. 5 and the opinion that survival and viability of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 13 both vends is not possible framed by learned Commissioner below is absolutely justified.
.
16. The response to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, therefore, amply demonstrate that by operating both set of vends from such a close distance, its survival is in danger. As a matter of fact, allowing the petitioner to operate the liquor vend from the present site i.e. Macleodganj Main Square r to is likely to result in huge financial loss and miscarriage of justice to respondent No. 5.
petitioner has been allotted the liquor vend at True it is that the Macleodganj.
There is again no dispute so as to Macleodganj is Ward No. 3 of Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala. There is again no quarrel so as to the Bhagsunag is Ward No. 2 of Municipal Corporation.
However, the L-2 and L-14 allotted to respondent No. 5 are not for Bhagsunag but at a location on Macleodganj-Bhagsunag Road. The location of the liquor vends allotted to the said respondent, therefore, is right i.e. Bhagsu Road. The petitioner, however, is not justified in claiming that Macleodganj Main Square is the suitable place from where he is entitled to operate his vend. If he is allowed to operate his vend from this site, it may not cause any loss to him but certainly to respondent No. 5 as the distance between the two sets of liquor vends will considerably reduce thereby. The Commissioner, therefore, has rightly rejected the present site selected by the petitioner at his ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 14 own and without seeking approval from the competent authority as required under Condition Nos. 10.2 and 10.5(II) of the .
Announcements. For the sake of convenience such conditions are reproduced here as under:
"10.2 The licensees shall have to make their own arrangements for procuring liquor and also for suitable vends (shops) to carry on their business in the localities for which particular licenses are sanctioned. It will be obligatory on the part of the licensee to get the premises and the name of the salesman approved along with his photograph, before starting the vends. The premises will be within a specific locality, where the location is not further specified, for which such licenses are sanctioned, but licensees cannot claim that the new premises should remain restricted within the area and premises in which the vends had been functioning previously. In case the licensee fails to arrange the premises for the vends to the satisfaction of the Additional/Joint/Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner of the Zone, he shall be liable to forfeiture of entire amount deposited by him and be further liable to penal action under the rules for any other loss of Government revenue, even if the business is not carried on:
Provided that when the licensee submits his application, for approval of the premises and the name of salesman, to the office of the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 15 Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner/Excise and Taxation Officer, .
Incharge of the district, on or before 1.4.2018 and obtains an acknowledgement from the office of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner/Excise and Taxation Officer, Incharge of the district in token of having submitted the application shall be deemed to be a provisional approval of the premises and the name of the salesman mentioned therein including provisional grant of a license. 10.5 (II) It will be obligatory on the licensees to get the premises approved, in writing, from the respective Addl./Joint/Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Collector) of the zone concerned."
17. That petitioner has been allotted liquor vend 'L-2 Mcleodganj' and after allotment, as provided under Clause 10-2 (supra) he was under obligation for not only to make arrangements for suitable vend in the locality concern but also to get the said premises, along with name of salesman, approved before starting the vend.
18. In the present case, liquor vend 'L-2' has been allotted to the petitioner in Mcleodganj. It is neither for Ward No. 2 Mcleodganj nor for Mcleodganj Main Square and therefore, the premises for running the said shop can be located within the locality 'Mcleodganj'. But at the same time, petitioner cannot ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 16 claim any right to function it from the premises in which vend had been running previously prior to the directions of the Apex .
Court. The competent authority can refuse to grant approval to house the liquor vend in Mcleodganj locality also with regard to particular premises but certainly for valid reasons especially when liquor vend of the same category has been allotted in adjacent locality. Viability as well as successful and fair operation of vends viz-a-viz each other is also a valid point to be considered for approval or refusal to approve the premises proposed by the allottee.
19. No doubt, the petitioner cannot be pushed outside the locality allotted to him, but in the same locality, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances including the location of surrounding similar liquor vend(s), competent authority may ask any allottee to shift from selected premises to somewhere else but for valid reasons. The allottee/petitioner, keeping in view location of another vend in adjacent locality, can be directed to house its liquor vend at a place from where viable as well as successful and fair operation of both allottees is expected.
However, at the same time, the petitioner cannot be left at the mercy of respondent No. 5 for selection of premises for functioning L-2 shop allotted to him. Petitioner and respondent No. 5 are rival businessmen in the same field and thus it would be unjust to keep either of them upon mercy of another.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 1720. There cannot be an indefeasible or absolute right to stick to a particular premises. It is a function within the .
competence of and to be performed by the authority to take an appropriate decision in clear terms with respect to any allottee based on the rational, justifiable and valid reasons.
Commissioner, Taxation and Excise with whose approval localities for allotment of liquor vends have been notified in 'Announcements', must have blue print of areas/localities/liquor vend(s) and thus, is the best authority to resolve the issue.
r the notified
21. Therefore, in view of express terms and conditions i.e. 10.2 & 10.5(II), the petitioner is not legally justified in claiming that he is entitled to run his liquor vend from Macleodganj Main Square. Learned Commissioner has, therefore, rightly rejected the site so selected by him at his own and directed to select some other site. The direction that he has to select the alternative site with the consent of respondent No. 5, however, is not legally justified, hence quashed because the petitioner is not at the mercy of respondent No. 5 so far as the selection of site by him is concerned. He, therefore, either to shift to the previous site i.e. Temple Road Macleodganj or select some other site in Macleodganj at a reasonable distance at least 400-500 meters from the site of the liquor vends of respondent No. 5 on Bhagsu Road within five days from the date of receipt ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 18 of the authenticated/certified copy of this judgment and thereafter inform the Additional/Joint/Deputy Excise and Taxation .
Commissioner, Kangra Zone at Dharamshala about the site so selected. Such Authority shall thereafter conduct the inspection of the site so selected by the petitioner and in case found viable from the point of view of successful and fair operation of the vends allotted to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 approve the same within two days thereafter. The petitioner thereafter will shift his business from the existing site i.e. Macleodganj Main Square either to the previous site i.e. Temple Road Macleodganj or the newly selected and duly approved site in Macleodganj bazar within three days thereafter. In the meanwhile, he shall be permitted to run his liquor vend from the existing site i.e. Macleodganj Main Square. However, if he failed to select any site and seek approval thereof within the time granted, his liquor vend at the existing site will stand closed automatically without any other and further order.
22. The second ground of challenge that one of the partner of respondent No. 5 Mr. Ranjeet Singh is a defaulter of previous year and also that the said respondent has failed to deposit 5% of the amount at which liquor vend (Unit-II) allotted to it is priced in terms of the announcements is again not available to the petitioner as the averments in the reply filed by respondent-State whereas sur-rejoinder filed by respondent No. ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 19 5 consequent upon the order dated 10.7.2018, make it crystal clear that L-2 and L-14 allotted to respondent No. 5 were priced .
at the cost of `3,61,11,275/-, 5% whereof by way of security was deposited by respondent No. 5 through E Treasury Challans, Annexure SA-4 and FDR Annexure SA-5. One of the partner Shri Ranjeet Singh of respondent No. 5 allegedly defaulter is a matter sub- judice before this Court in CWP No. 2590 of 2017 filed few of the liquor vends allotted to the firm M/S Vineet Khanna and Company during the previous year i.e. 2017-2018 in district Lahaul and Spiti could not at all be opened whereas those opened had to be closed as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court . In view of the interim order Annexure R-1 to the reply filed on behalf of respondent-State passed in CWP No. 2590 of 2017 this Court has directed that with respect to those vends which stands closed or could not be opened solely on account of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court licence fee shall not be charged. Therefore, any amount if due from Ranjeet Singh aforesaid in view of the interim order he cannot be treated as defaulter and the writ petition is yet pending adjudication in this Court.
23. Otherwise also, this point has been raised in this writ petition for the first time. The same was not raised in the writ petition filed previously decided vide judgment dated 21.5.2018 Annexure P-2. There is nothing on record that the petitioner has ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP 20 ever raised this objection at the time of draw of lots and allotment of L-2 Bhagsu Road to respondent No. 5. Therefore, .
irrespective of our findings hereinabove, if so advised, we leave it open to the petitioner to agitate this point before the competent authority at the time of seeking approval of the site to be selected by him pursuant to this judgment. If any such point is raised by the petitioner, we hope and trust that the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. However, so far as the relief qua cancellation of L-2 allotted to respondent No. 5 at location Bhagsu Road sought in this writ petition, no case is made out.
24. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
25. An authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to learned Senior Additional Advocate General, learned Counsel representing the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the private respondent.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
July 25, 2018, Judge.
( vs)
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2018 22:58:15 :::HCHP