TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Quashes Liquor Shop Shift Order for Violating Statutory Provisions</h1> <h3>K. Devamani Versus Union Territory of Puducherry, The Deputy Commissioner Excise, The District Collector Karaikal, Puducherry, M/s. Cee Cee & Cee</h3> K. Devamani Versus Union Territory of Puducherry, The Deputy Commissioner Excise, The District Collector Karaikal, Puducherry, M/s. Cee Cee & Cee - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of shifting liquor shops from Mahe Region to Karaikal Region.2. Interpretation of the term 'place' under the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970.3. Compliance with statutory formalities and requirements under the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970.4. Validity of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Karaikal and Puducherry.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Shifting Liquor Shops from Mahe Region to Karaikal Region:The petitioner filed writ petitions as Public Interest Litigations to prevent the respondents from establishing or shifting liquor shops from Mahe Region to Karaikal District. The petitioner argued that the provisions of the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970, restrict shifting within a specified local area and do not allow shifting to a different region, citing the Single Bench order in WP.No.39961/2002 and the Supreme Court's judgment in 2017 [2] SCC 281. The Deputy Commissioner [Excise] granted permission for the shift, which the petitioner challenged on the grounds that it violated the Act and Rules.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Place' under the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970:The term 'place' defined under Section 2[22] of the Act, 1970, was a central issue. The petitioner argued that 'place' should mean a locality or area within the same region and not extend to different regions. The court examined previous judgments and statutory interpretations, concluding that 'place' has a restrictive meaning and should be confined to the area where the liquor shop is originally located.3. Compliance with Statutory Formalities and Requirements under the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970:The petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner [Excise] did not objectively consider the objections raised and failed to comply with Rule 122, which mandates determining the maximum number of licenses in an area. The court found that the Deputy Commissioner's disposal of the petitioner's objections was not satisfactory and did not adhere to the directions issued in the common order dated 26.02.2018. However, the court noted that Rule 122 was complied with in letter and spirit.4. Validity of the Orders Passed by the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Karaikal and Puducherry:The court scrutinized the orders dated 27.03.2018 and 15.06.2018, which permitted the 4th respondent to shift the liquor shop from Mahe Region to Karaikal Region. The court held that these orders were not in consonance with the statutory provisions and the directions issued in the previous common order. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and set aside the permission granted for the shift.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the orders dated 15.06.2018 and 27.03.2018 by the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Karaikal and Puducherry, and set aside the permission accorded to the 4th respondent to shift the liquor shop from Mahe Region to Karaikal Region. The court emphasized that the term 'place' in the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970, and the Rules should be interpreted restrictively, limiting shifts within the same area. The court also provided the 4th respondent the liberty to seek remedies under the law before the competent forum.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
