Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 November, 2008

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH.

                                               C.W.P. No.19699 of 2008
                                             Date of decision: 19.11.2008
Rajesh Kumar.
                                                             -----Petitioner
                                    Vs.
State of Haryana and others.
                                                         -----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
        HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL

Present:-    Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate
             for the petitioner.
                   -----
ORDER:

This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 21.8.2008,

Annexure P-5, requiring the petitioner to show cause why his licence be

not cancelled under Section 36(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and

why the amount of security for unexpired period of the licence be not

forfeited.

The allegation in the notice is that the petitioner had opened

sub-Vend in less than 2.5 kms. from L-14A Vend at Hansi Road No.II

and thereby, contravened condition No.2.6 of the Excise Policy for the

year 2008-09.

Case of the petitioner is that there was no violation of the

same, as requirement of Rule 2.6 of the policy was applicable only to

rural vends, while the petitioner had licence in the urban area.

We find two difficulties in entertaining this petition. The

petitioner had earlier filed C.W.P. No.15304 of 2008 for almost identical

relief i.e. against sealing of the sub-Vend on the same ground. The

petitioner was required to show any sanction for the sub-Vend, on
C.W.P. No.19699 of 2008

2

which the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. Order dated 5.9.2008 is

as under:-

“On 29.8.2008, following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to
show the sanction alleged to have been granted for
opening Sub Vend in the area of Hakikat Nagar.

List again on 5.9.2008.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to
show any sanction having been granted for opening of
Sub Vend.

We, thus, do not find any merit in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he
is going to file another petition against some other
letter received.

We do not express any opinion on the said
course of action.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
says that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

Apart from above, the impugned letter was merely a notice,

requiring the petitioner to show cause why action be not taken and the

petitioner has not chosen to take alternative remedy of responding to

the said letter.

In view of above, this petition is dismissed, without prejudice

to the petitioner replying to the impugned notice and decision being

taken by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

                                             ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
                                                    JUDGE


November 19, 2008                                   ( L. N. MITTAL )
ashwani                                                 JUDGE