Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The relevant facts are that the petitioner was first granted two licences for vending IMFL Beer from the aforesaid two shops in the year 2011-2012. The respondent department invited applications on 27-2-2012 for renewal of licences in currency pursuant whereto the petitioner deposited the requisite licence fee at the rate of Rs.12.65 lacs each for two shops aforesaid effective after 1-4- 2012. The petitioner continued operation as license for the year 2012-2013. A notice dated 30-4-2012 then came to be issued requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the licenses for vending IMFL/ Beer from the aforesaid two shops not be cancelled for reason of him having been challaned under Section 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter `the Act of 1950') following investigation in FIR No.66/2012 for offences under Section 14, 19/54 of the Act of 1950, which was first lodged against his brother Tola Ram Parwani on 3-3-2012. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on or about 7-5-2012. The reply was considered and counsel for the petitioner was heard following which vide order dated 9-5-2012 the District Excise Officer cancelled the two licences as detailed above with reference to Section 34(1)(c) of the Act of 1950 read with Rule 76(c) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1956') as also the conditions No.7.2 and 7.3 of the licences first issued in 2012. A statutory appeal followed before the Excise Commissioner, who vide his judgment dated 19-11-2012 affirmed the order passed by the District Excise Officer. A further appeal before the Board by the petitioner was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 18-2-2013. Hence this petition.

Mr. G.S. Bapna, Seniror Advocate appearing with Mr. Sameer Jain on behalf of the petitioner submitted that mere lodging of a FIR No.66/2012 on 3-3-2012 against the petitioner's brother Tola Ram Parwani for offences under Sections 14, 19/54 of the Act of 1950 in which the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the course of investigation by resort to Section 54A of the Act of 1950 was not a contravention of license issued to the petitioner in respect of two shops above nor sufficed, by resort to Section 34(1)(d) of the Act of 1950, for cancellation of licences and forfeiture of the fee deposited therefor. It was submitted that Section 34(1)(d) of the Act of 1950 merely provides that the authority the granting the license under the Act of 1950 can cancel or suspend the license if the holder thereof was convicted for any offence punishable under the Act of 1950 or any other law set out therein. It was submitted that the petitioner has not been convicted and has merely been made an accused in an absolutely false criminal case against his brother Tola Ram Parwani. It was further submitted that in any event insofar as clause 7.2 of the conditions of the licence for 2011-2012 provided that mere registration of an FIR for any offence under the Act of 1950 would entail cancellation of licence, it is ultra vires Section 34 of the Act of 1950 and to be valid has to be read down as entailing cancellation of licence issued under the Act of 1950 only if the criminal case lodged entailed conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. It was submitted in the alternative that as FIR No.66/2012 was lodged on 3-3-2012, if at all the licence was liable to be cancelled for reason therefor by resort to condition 7.2 of the conditions of the licence 2011-12, it could be cancelled only upto 31-3-2012 and not for the subsequent period i.e. 2012-2013 for which only the license fee was deposited by the petitioner on 15-3-2012, but the renewed licence not actually issued. Senior counsel then submitted that if at all the lodging of FIR No.66/2012 was a disability against the petitioner in respect of his right to renewal for Financial Year 2012-2013 the department ought not to have accepted the license fee of Rs.12.65 lacs for each of the two shops at Sindhi Colony and Malviya Nagar for the year 2012-2013. Counsel has further submitted that to have accepted the licence fee for renewal qua the two shops, allowed continuation of sale of IMFL/ Beer therefrom beginning 1-4-2012 then to cancel the two licences vide order dated 9-5-2012 was unjust and expropriatory. Hence the order dated 9-5-2012 passed by the District Excise Officer Jaipur as upheld by the Excise Commissioner in appeal vide judgment dated 19-11-2012 and by the Board in second appeal vide judgment dated 18-2-2013 is unsustainable and even otherwise vitiated for having forfeited the licence fee paid by the petitioner, without the said issue being set out in the show cause notice.

Per contra, Mr. R.B. Mathur, counsel for the department submitted that cancellation of the petitioner's licence for the two shops at Sindhi Colony, Jaipur and Malviya Nagar, Jaipur for the year 2012-2013 relates to Section 34(1)(c) of the Act of 1950 read with Rules 76(c) of the Rules of 1956 and conditions 7.2 and 7.3 of the licence issued to the petitioner, in the first instance for the year 2011-2012 and thereafter renewed on deposit of licence fee for two shops aforesaid effective 1-4-2012 whereupon the petitioner was allowed to sell IMFL/ Beer therefrom till 31-3-2013. It was submitted that the petitioner's brother while driving Maruti Suzuki RJ-14/CK-5111 was caught red handed by the Enforcement wing of the Excise Department on 3-3-2012 illegally transacting 12 bottles of IMFL bottled in Haryana and to be sold in Haryana only to one Kishore, driver of Maruti Car RJ-06/C-0364. It was submitted that the two accused aforesaid were thereupon arrested and FIR No.66/2012 for offence u/s. 14, 19/54 of the Act of 1950 lodged. On investigation made, it transpired that the vehicle involved in the commission of the offence u/s.14, 19/54 of the Act of 1950. Maruti Suzuki RJ-14/CK-5111 was registered in the name of the petitioner, the holder of the licences for the two shops aforesaid situate at Sindhi Colony Jaipur and Malviya Nagar Jaipur. It was submitted that Section 54A of the Act of 1950 inter alia provides that where any motor vehicle is used in the commission of an offence under the Act of 1950 and is liable to confiscation, the owner thereof shall be deemed to be guilty of such offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly unless he satisfied the court that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being or likely to be committed and he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence. It was submitted that in the course of proceedings before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur, one Poonam, wife of Tola Ram Parwani, brother of the petitioner, stated that her husband Tola Ram Parwani was working at a wine shop in Malviya Nagar--which shop was licenced to the petitioner. It was submitted that Tola Ram Parwani is none other than the real brother of the petitioner. Mr. R.B. Mathur submitted then that the petitioner was thus evidently engaged with his brother in the business of sale of IMFL/ Beer. The petitioner was thus clearly an active participant in commission of an offence under the Act of 1950. Counsel submitted that a clear case of breach of conditions of the licence was thus made out. It was further submitted that the guilty mind of the petitioner was prima facie established from the fact that in the first instance the petitioner absconded, subsequent to lodging of FIR No.66/2012. Thereafter he set up a false case as an afterthought in defence that Maruti Suzuki RJ-14/CK-5111 had been sold by him to his brother. That defence was found unsustainable by the District Excise Officer and Tax Board, as no document with regard to the sale of the car was submitted by him with the competent authenticity under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules made thereunder to make out sale of the offending vehicle. It was submitted that indulging in illicit sale of IMFL being a contravention of the Act of 1950 and the conditions of the licence to sell IMFL/ Beer, the District Excise Officer consequently cancelled the petitioner's licence and forfeited the licence fee in terms of Section 34(3) of the Act of 1950. His judgment has rightly been affirmed by the Excise Commissioner on 19-11-2012 as also by the Board vide its judgment dated 18-2-2013. No interference is warranted at the hand of this court as the three concurrent judgments neither suffer any jurisdictional error, patent illegality nor perversity.

Heard. Considered.

It is well settled that the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised against the order passed by a statutory authority not as a matter of course but only if a case of jurisdictional error, perversity, patent illegality or manifest injustice is made out. None of the aforesaid situations obtain in the present case. From the facts on record before the three statutory authorities it was established that FIR No.66/2012 dated 3-3-2012 for offences u/s.14, 19/54 of the Act of 1950 was lodged against the brother of the petitioner Tola Ram Parwani while he was engaged in illegally transacting liquor, using Maruti Suzuki RJ-14/CK-5111 of which the petitioner was at the relevant time the registered owner as was established following investigation. The petitioner was deemed to be guilty of an offence under the Act of 1950 by virtue of Section 54A thereof. The petitioner first absconded and then took a desperately false defence of having sold the Maruti Suzuki RJ-14/CK-5111 to his brother-- this was however not established from the record of the Motor Vehicle Department. These facts were brought to the notice of the District Excise Officer by the Enforcement Wing of the Excise Department vide letter dated 25-4-2012, show cause notice dated 30-4-2012 followed to the petitioner.