IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 13762 of 2009
Date of Decision: December 2, 2009
Karan Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana,
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate,
for Mr. Vikram Singh Dhakla, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer
for issuance of direction to the respondents to act in accordance with
the excise policy for the year 2009-2010. The petitioner has pointed
out that there are two violations of the excise policy which have been
incorporated in Item Nos. 2.8 and 2.10. According to the grievance
made by the petitioner the siting parameter of the vends and sub-
C.W.P. No. 13762 of 2009 2
vends have been given in the excise policy and the distance between a
vend or sub-vend has to be 2.5 kilometers. Referring to the site plan
(Annexure P-5) it has been argued that the distance between the L-2
vend dealing with Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for brevity, ‘IMFL’)
allotted to the petitioner, is only 600 metres from the sub-vend of
respondent No. 3, who has been allotted a L-14A vend dealing with
Country Made Liquor (for brevity, ‘CL’). The other grievance made
by the petitioner is that the condition mentioned in Item No. 2.10 of
the excise policy has also been violated, inasmuch as, respondent No.
3, who is holding L-14A vend for sale of ‘CL’, has been selling Beer,
which is covered by ‘IMFL’.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been allotted L-
2 licence which deals with sale of ‘IMFL’ and the licence issued to
respondent No. 3 is entirely different, namely, L-14A, which deals
with ‘CL’. The siting parameters incorporated in Item No. 2.8 of the
excise policy for a vend and sub-vend would apply to the vend/sub-
vend of the same kind of licence and it cannot be applied inter-vends
of different licences dealing with different liquor. Permitting such a
comparison would result into treating un-equals equally. This is the
precise stand taken by the respondent State in its written statement in
para No. 2 of the preliminary submissions and para No. 8 of the reply
on merits, which has also been adopted by respondent No. 3. In so
far as the grievance emerging from Item No. 2.10 of the excise policy
that respondent No. 3 has been selling Beer, there is categorical
denial by the respondents in para 6 of the written statement. It has
been vehemently denied that respondent No. 3 is permitted to sell
C.W.P. No. 13762 of 2009 3
Beer. To make sure compliance of the excise policy and other
provisions, the Excise Inspectors have been appointed by the
department circle wise. It has been further clarified that on checking
no such violation was found on sub-vend of village Sobhapur, which
has been allotted to respondent No. 3. We find no illegality in the
action taken by the respondents or any violation of Item Nos. 2.8 and
2.10 of the excise policy. The petition is without merit and the same
is accordingly dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(SABINA)
December 2, 2009 JUDGE
Pkapoor