Citation : 2001 Local Law (CG) 26
The Chhattisgarh High Court has partly allowed a writ petition filed by a liquor contractor from Raipur, granting him exemption from paying the licence fee for 11 days after finding that the government’s closure orders were either delayed or not legally justified.
Justice R.S. Garg delivered the order in a detailed judgment concerning a 2000-2001 excise contract dispute. The petitioner, a successful bidder for the liquor contract in Raipur district, argued that he should not be charged for the first three days of April 2000 since the licence was issued late—on April 3. He also sought compensation for days when his shops were forced to close due to political agitations, undeclared dry days, and elections held in nearby districts.
According to the petition, the liquor shops remained shut for several days because of political demonstrations surrounding the formation of the new state of Chhattisgarh and other events such as local elections and public protests. The petitioner claimed he was unfairly made to bear losses for periods not covered under official “dry days.”
The State contended that under the terms of the sale memorandum, the contractor was bound by the government’s directions and was not entitled to any remission or refund except in specific circumstances. However, the Court found that the State’s reliance on certain clauses from older sale conditions was misplaced, as those provisions had been amended or deleted in later years.
Justice Garg ruled that since the contract came into existence only on April 3, 2000, the petitioner could not be charged for the preceding three days. The Court further observed that the Collector of Raipur had no legal authority to order the closure of shops when elections were being held in the neighbouring Durg district, as the relevant sale memo restricted such closures to areas where elections actually occurred.
Additionally, the Court found that political agitations could not be equated with “social disturbances” or “demonstrations” under the licence conditions. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to relief for five days of closures due to political movements and three days related to the Collector’s unlawful closure orders—making a total of 11 days.
The Court directed that the petitioner either be exempted from paying the licence fee for those 11 days or refunded the equivalent amount if already paid. However, his claim for additional days of compensation was rejected.
The writ petition was thus partly allowed, with both sides ordered to bear their own costs.
Case Details : Writ Petition No. 6021 of 2000, Sun Bright Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. The Commissioner (Excise), Gwalior (M.P.) and Ors. (04.04.2001)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shri N.C. Jain, Sr. Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Dr. N.K. Shukla, Dy. Adv. General
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution Of India – Article 14, Constitution Of India – Article 226, Constitution Of India – Article 227; Madhya Pradesh Excise Act 1915 – Section 24, Madhya Pradesh Excise Act 1915 – Section 24(1), Madhya Pradesh Excise Act 1915 – Section 31, Madhya Pradesh Excise Act 1915 – Section 32, Madhya Pradesh Excise Act 1915 – Section 38, Madhya Pradesh Excise Act 1915 – Section 62(2)(g) ,Madhya Pradesh Excise Act 1915 – Section 62(2)(h)
Cases Referred:
Shatrughanlal Shrivastava and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1997 (2) MPLJ 54; Ashok Kumar Sahu and another v. State of M.P. and others, AIR 1994 MP 130; State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Harishchand, 2000(II) MPJR 489
Supreme Court Status:
Judgment challenged vide [( 2004 ) 3 SCC 185 | [ 2004 ] 2 SCR 313] dated: 12.02.2004
Case Overruled/Partly Overruled by:
Secretary, Department of Excise and Commercial Taxes and Ors. Vs. Sun Bright Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Chhattisgarh and Anr., [( 2004 ) 3 SCC 185 | [ 2004 ] 2 SCR 313]
======
आबकारी – लाइसेंस शुल्क – छूट से संबंधित मामला
याचिकाकर्ता को राज्य में देशी शराब की बिक्री का ठेका दिया गया था। ठेका मिलने के बाद उसने कुछ दुकानें खोलीं, लेकिन नई छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य की स्थापना से जुड़ी राजनीतिक आंदोलनों और प्रदर्शनों के कारण कलेक्टर ने कुछ दिनों के लिए उसकी शराब की दुकानें बंद करने का आदेश दिया। इसके अतिरिक्त, कारगिल मुद्दे से संबंधित राजनीतिक आंदोलन और कुछ सार्वजनिक छुट्टियों के दौरान भी दुकानों को बंद रखना पड़ा। इस कारण याचिकाकर्ता ने उन दिनों के लिए लाइसेंस शुल्क से छूट की मांग करते हुए वर्तमान याचिका दायर की।
मुख्य प्रश्न: क्या याचिकाकर्ता दुकानों के बंद रहने के दिनों के लिए लाइसेंस शुल्क से छूट पाने का हकदार है?
निर्णय: न्यायालय ने पाया कि याचिकाकर्ता को पांच दिनों तक राजनीतिक आंदोलनों के कारण दुकानें बंद करनी पड़ीं। यह स्थिति न तो प्राकृतिक आपदा, सामाजिक अशांति, सार्वजनिक प्रदर्शन या कानून-व्यवस्था की श्रेणी में आती थी। इसलिए कलेक्टर का दुकानों को बंद करने का आदेश विधिसम्मत नहीं था।
न्यायालय ने यह भी कहा कि लोकहित में कलेक्टर को केवल तीन दिनों तक दुकानें बंद करने का अधिकार है। बाद में कारण बताना किसी अवैध आदेश को वैध नहीं बना सकता। इसके अलावा, चुनाव के दौरान केवल उन्हीं क्षेत्रों में दुकानें बंद रखी जा सकती हैं जहाँ वास्तव में मतदान हो रहा हो।
अतः न्यायालय ने माना कि याचिकाकर्ता की दुकानों को बंद करने का आदेश उचित नहीं था। परिणामस्वरूप, याचिकाकर्ता को 11 दिनों के लिए लाइसेंस शुल्क से छूट का हकदार माना गया। हालांकि, पाँच और दिनों के लिए की गई अतिरिक्त मांग अस्वीकृत कर दी गई।
निष्कर्ष: याचिका आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार की गई।
