Skip to content


Trlok Chand Vs. the Excise and Prohibition Commissioner and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10/81
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)292
AppellantTrlok Chand
RespondentThe Excise and Prohibition Commissioner and anr.
Cases ReferredChandanmal v. State of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
.....petitioner failed to lift the guarantee amount of liquor whereas the petitioner's case is that the state government was short of liquor in that year and the supplies could not be made to him m time and he was not at fault. the disputed questions of facts whether the state government was not in position to supply the liquor or the petitioner did not lift the liquor on account of his own fault, can be better determined by a civil court. the auction-purchases deposited the initial amount but later on they failed to make their obligations under the conditions of the auction and fell in arrears. i am of the opinion that the alternative remedy provided under the law is expedient as well as efficacious one. 3. disputed questions of facts involved in this case can be better decided by a suit and..........and the guarantee amount fixed was rs 9070/-. he deposited the security amount of rs. 910/-. the state government has issued a demand notice for the payment of rs 2797.06 n.p. on the ground that the petitioner failed to lift the guarantee amount of liquor whereas the petitioner's case is that the state government was short of liquor in that year and the supplies could not be made to him m time and he was not at fault.2. it is purely a matter relating to breach of contract. the disputed questions of facts whether the state government was not in position to supply the liquor or the petitioner did not lift the liquor on account of his own fault, can be better determined by a civil court. in har shanker and ors. v. deputy excise and taxation commissioner and ors. : [1975]3scr254 wherein.....
Judgment:

M.L. Shrimal, J.

1. The petitioner obtained a licence for retail sale of country liquor for the year 1967-68. Licence was granted to him for the shop situated in village Pipalda and the guarantee amount fixed was Rs 9070/-. He deposited the security amount of Rs. 910/-. The State Government has issued a demand notice for the payment of Rs 2797.06 n.p. on the ground that the petitioner failed to lift the guarantee amount of liquor whereas the petitioner's case is that the State Government was short of liquor in that year and the supplies could not be made to him m time and he was not at fault.

2. It is purely a matter relating to breach of contract. The disputed questions of facts whether the State Government was not in position to supply the liquor or the petitioner did not lift the liquor on account of his own fault, can be better determined by a civil court. In Har Shanker and Ors. v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. : [1975]3SCR254 wherein number of appeals were filed before their Lordships of the Supreme Court by retail dealers. The question involved in those cases was that the licences were issued to retail vendors on the highest bid of auction given by them. The conditions governing auction were notified through announcement made at the time of the auction. The auction-purchases deposited the initial amount but later on they failed to make their obligations under the conditions of the auction and fell in arrears. The State Government demanded payment, threatened to cancel the licences granted to the appellant, declared its intention to resell the vends at the risk of the appellants. When the matter went before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it was observed that a concluded contract came into existence between the parties and a writ petition could not be said to be an appropriate remedy for impeaching the validity of contractual obligations. I am of the opinion that the alternative remedy provided under the law is expedient as well as efficacious one.

3. Disputed questions of facts involved in this case can be better decided by a suit and it is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. However, it is observed that if the petitioner moves a proper application before the concerned Excise authority it is expected of him that the concerned Officer will give due consideration to the observations made by this Court in Chandanmal v. State of Rajasthan 1980 WLN (UC) 137 and give to the petitioner a proper opportunity to represent his case. He will also make enquiry at his own level as to whether the liquor was available during the period of licence and if the petitioner could not lift the liquor on account of his own fault or on account of Government fault, he will not be thrown from pillar to post. Even thereafter if petitioner does not feel satisfied, it will be open to him to file a civil suit.

4. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //