Suman Kumari vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur as the respondent

No.4 in the present writ petition.

Considering the situation prevailing due to outbreak of Corona (Covid-19), office is directed to make necessary insertion in the cause title of the

present writ petition.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of show cause to the respondents as to how and under what authority, the respondent No.3 has

been granted a license being License No. 080_flx_eas_20-21 for retail sale of foreign liquors for the entire Bistupur Area except within 125 meters of

Regal Building situated at Bistupur Roundabout as for the said area/location, three retail licenses including the one issued to the petitioner are already

existing for the period 2019-22. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to shift/change the location of

the retail liquor shop of the respondent No.3 to such other place which may not adversely impact the trade/business of the petitioner or to reduce the

Minimum Guarantee Revenue for the remaining period with regard to the license issued to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the lottery and was subsequently settled with a retail shop namely

'Vi.Sha.dhu.Bistupur No.2' for retail sale of foreign liquor and a license bearing No. 017_FLX_EAS_19-20 was issued to her on 01.06.2019 by the

Assistant Commissioner-cum-Licensing Officer, Excise Department, East Singhbhum for the period from 01.06.2019 to 31.03.2022. Pursuant to such

settlement, total three shops were permitted to be operated in the Bistupur Area for the period 2019-20. In order to grant license to operate two more

retail shops in the Bistupur Area for sale of liquor, the respondents issued an advertisement in the year 2020. However, there was no stipulation in the

said advertisement that the new allotted retail shops shall not be located near the existing retail shops as a result of which, after getting the license, the

respondent No.3 opened a retail shop adjacent to the petitioner's existing retail shop. The distance between the shops of the petitioner and the

respondent No.3 is just 40 meters. The details of the retail shop of the respondent No.3 is as under:

Retail Shop No.5 - 'For the entire Bistupur Area except within 125 meters of Regal Building situated at Bistupur Roundabout', being License number

- 080_flx_eas_20-21

Consequent upon opening of the retail shop of the respondent No.3, the sale of the petitioner's shop has been adversely affected and the viability of

the entire business is in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not dispute the grant of license in favour of the respondent No.3 in

Bistupur Area, but she is aggrieved by the adjacent location of the said shop. Had the respondent-State imposed a condition in the nature of prohibition

from opening a retail shop adjacent to an existing shop, this situation would not have arisen. The absence of such stipulation in the selection process is

discriminatory and it has violated the right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Undisputedly, the petitioner has developed a

market for purchasers of liquor in the locality, but by opening of another shop in the same area, the respondent No.3 has been unduly benefitted. It is

further submitted that Rule 7 of the Jharkhand Excise (Settlement and Operation of Shops for Retail Sale of Liquor) Rules, 2018 [hereinafter referred

to as 'the Rules, 2018'] provides that the total number of shops and the location of the same has to be fixed by the District Collector/Deputy

Commissioner with the help of the Assistant Excise Commissioner. Rule 8 of the Rules, 2018 gives the power to change the Minimum Guarantee

Revenue from time to time. It is further submitted that the sale in the shop of the petitioner has drastically reduced by half due to settlement of two

foreign liquor shops within 40 meters. It is further submitted that before settling the shops in a particular area, the respondent department has fixed

Minimum Guarantee Revenue of each shop and as such suddenly in middle of lock-in period of 3 years, the respondent department cannot be allowed

to settle one more shop nearby the previously settled shop without changing its Minimum Guarantee Revenue. It is thus submitted by learned counsel

for the petitioner that either the location of the shop of the respondent No.3 near the petitioner's shop may be changed or the Minimum Guarantee

Revenue fixed for the petitioner's shop may be reduced by half. Raising the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner has already represented before the

respondent No.4, however, no action has been taken by the said authority in this regard which has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ

petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, without

entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.4 on the present issue. On

receipt of such representation, the respondent No.4, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/her representative as well as the

respondent No.3, shall take an informed decision in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of the said

representation.

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.