Court permits liquor shop licensee to operate, stresses prompt licensing decision. Upholding rights and due process.

The court allowed the petitioner, a licensee of a country liquor shop, to continue operating his business as the original cancellation order was no longer in effect. The court directed the licensing authority to promptly consider the pending application and the fresh order within a month, emphasizing the need for expeditious action to ensure compliance with legal requirements. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding the petitioner's rights while adhering to due process and legal obligations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against cancellation of liquor shop license.
2. Delay in considering the application to run the liquor shop.
3. Justification for not permitting petitioner to carry on liquor business.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a licensee of a country liquor shop, had his license cancelled on 31.05.2017. He appealed under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, and the appeal was allowed on 19.07.2017, remanding the matter for fresh consideration within a month. The petitioner subsequently applied to run the shop while awaiting the fresh order. The main contention was the non-consideration of this application.

2. The Standing Counsel argued that a fresh order was pending as per the remand directive, and restoring the license prematurely could lead to complications if the subsequent order goes against the petitioner. However, the court noted that since the original cancellation order was no longer in effect, there was no justification for the authorities to prevent the petitioner from operating his business as per the granted license. The court directed the licensing authority to promptly consider both the pending application and the fresh order in accordance with the law, preferably within a month from the date of the court's order.

3. The judgment emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to continue his liquor business in light of the non-existence of the cancellation order. It highlighted the need for expeditious action by the licensing authority to address the pending matters and ensure compliance with the legal requirements. The court's decision to dispose of the petition with directions aimed at resolving the issues promptly underscored the significance of upholding the petitioner's rights while adhering to due process and legal obligations.

---