2017 (8) TMI 1534 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Quashes Liquor License Cancellation, Orders Fair Hearing

The Allahabad High Court quashed the impugned order dated 18.08.2017 cancelling a country-made liquor shop license held by the petitioner. The Court ... Cancellation of license for running of country made Liquor Shop - remand of the order - HELD THAT:- As the impugned order is only reiteration of the earlier order dated 31.05.2017 and directs for maintaining the same, despite the fact that the said order was held to be unsustainable in law by the appellate authority, the impugned order dated 18.08.2017 is hereby quashed with direction to the licensing authority to pass a fresh order on each and every aspect of the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by any outside pressure as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of an authentic copy of this order. Petition allowed. Issues:1. Cancellation of liquor shop license.2. Legality of the order dated 31.05.2017.3. Allegations of influence by a local politician.4. Quashing of the impugned order dated 18.08.2017.5. Direction for passing a fresh order by the licensing authority.Analysis:The judgment of the Allahabad High Court dealt with the cancellation of a country-made liquor shop license held by the petitioner in Bankata, District Kushi Nagar. The licensing authority initially cancelled the license through an order dated 31.05.2017, which was subsequently deemed unsustainable in law by the appellate authority. The matter was remanded back to the licensing authority for a fresh decision after providing the petitioner with a hearing opportunity. However, the licensing authority reissued the same order on 18.08.2017, prompting the petitioner to challenge its validity.The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no justification for maintaining the order dated 31.05.2017, especially considering its legal unsustainability. Additionally, it was alleged that the licensing authority had been influenced by a local politician in issuing the impugned order. In response, the Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and another counsel for respondent No. 5 suggested that sending the matter back to the licensing authority for a fresh decision would be more appropriate given the circumstances.The High Court, after considering the submissions and the facts of the case, concluded that the impugned order dated 18.08.2017, which merely reiterated the earlier unsustainable order, should be quashed. The Court directed the licensing authority to reexamine the matter comprehensively and issue a fresh order in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of deciding the case without external influences. The Court set a timeline of six weeks for the licensing authority to complete this process from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order, ultimately allowing the petition in favor of the petitioner.