CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Smt. Prema Devi vs State of U.P. and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 19 September 2011 · Citation: (2011) 09 AHC CK 0495

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arun Tandon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 — Section 11(1), 11(2)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 336 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 355 words

Arun Tandon, J.—This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the State Government in exercise of powers u/s 11(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910. Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

Petitioner before this Court was granted licence for retail vend of foreign liquor in respect of the shop Sirsaganj Road Karhal City and district Mainpuri for the excise year 2009-10 on 22.4.2009.

2.

Surprise inspection was made of the licensed premises of the petitioner by the excise authority with the help of the police authorities. During surprise inspection, illicit liquor was recovered from the premises. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued by the District Magistrate to explain as to why her licence may not be cancelled. The explanation furnished by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Vide order dated 18.5.2009, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled.

3.

Not being satisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal being Appeal No. 36 of 2009, u/s 11(1) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 before the Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 8.1.2010 by the Additional Excise Commissioner.

4.

Not being satisfied, the District Excise Officer, Mainpuri filed a revision u/s 11(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 which has been allowed by the State Government under an order dated 4.3.2010. Hence, this petition.

5.

On behalf of the petitioner various technicalities have been raised in respect of filing of the appeal by the District Excise Officer. However, nothing much could be added to challenge the recovery of the illicit liquor at the time of surprise checking from the licenced premises, nor the competence of the District Magistrate to cancel the licence, have been raised.

6.

This Court finds that the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner has been passed after affording opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.

7.

In the totality of the circumstances, this Court holds that the order of the State Government does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.