Discretionary compounding and writ objections not raised below cannot be invoked to defeat excise licence cancellation.

Compounding of an excise offence under Section 74 of the U.P. Excise Act was held to be discretionary, and no enforceable right arose where the petitioner had contested the proceedings on merits without seeking compounding before the competent authorities. The licence cancellation was therefore not interfered with on that ground. The challenge to forfeiture of security money also failed because the plea had not been raised before the statutory authorities or the State Government, and a writ court would not entertain a fresh ground not pressed below. On that basis, no interference was made with the impugned excise orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could claim compounding of the alleged excise offence under Section 74 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 after having contested the proceedings without invoking that remedy before the authorities below; (ii) Whether the forfeiture of security money could be assailed in writ jurisdiction when no such plea had been raised before the statutory authorities.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could claim compounding of the alleged excise offence under Section 74 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 after having contested the proceedings without invoking that remedy before the authorities below.

Analysis: The petitioner had admitted sale of liquor of the previous excise year under the current licence, but no application for compounding was made at any stage before the authorities. Compounding under Section 74 is discretionary, and a party that chose to contest the matter on merits cannot later insist that the offence ought to have been compounded instead of the licence being cancelled.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no enforceable right to compounding, and the cancellation of the licence was not liable to interference on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the forfeiture of security money could be assailed in writ jurisdiction when no such plea had been raised before the statutory authorities.

Analysis: The challenge to forfeiture was not raised before the State Government. A statutory order cannot be attacked in writ proceedings on a ground that was never pressed before the authority concerned.

Conclusion: The challenge to forfeiture of security money was not entertainable.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the impugned excise orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction, and the challenge failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot claim compounding as of right after omitting to invoke that discretionary remedy before the competent authority, and a writ challenge cannot succeed on grounds not raised before the statutory authority.

---