Court allows recovery against respondent for operating arrack shop irregularly.

The court found irregularities in permitting the 3rd respondent to operate the arrack shop against the confirmation order. The writ petition was allowed, granting liberty to proceed against the 3rd respondent for recovering the due amount in accordance with the law. The judgment disposed of the writ petition with observations and without costs, closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to recovery notice for amount due from 3rd respondent with reference to license for running an arrack shop, refusal of 3rd respondent to return title deed offered as security, misuse of title deed for arrack license, validity of registration of mortgage, role of petitioner in offering property, irregularity in permitting 3rd respondent to run arrack shop.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a recovery notice seeking to recover an amount and penalty from the 3rd respondent related to a license for running an arrack shop. The petitioner claimed to have borrowed money from the 3rd respondent and offered her property as security. Despite repaying the amount, the 3rd respondent refused to return the title deed. The 3rd respondent had used the title deed as security for obtaining the arrack license, leading to an order of attachment due to arrears. The petitioner had also filed a private complaint and obtained information confirming her role as a surety for the license. The petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent misused the title deed for the license without proper registration of mortgage.

The respondent contended that the petitioner had obtained a solvency certificate to participate in the arrack shop auction, suggesting awareness of the surety offered. The 3rd respondent defaulted on payments, leading to forfeiture of amounts and encashment of a bank guarantee. The respondent argued that the petitioner's property was offered as security for the license due to her participation in the auction. The court noted the lack of clarity regarding the petitioner's role and the absence of valid registration of the mortgage as required.

The court found irregularities in permitting the 3rd respondent to operate the arrack shop against the confirmation order. The writ petition was allowed, granting liberty to proceed against the 3rd respondent for recovering the due amount in accordance with the law. The judgment disposed of the writ petition with observations and without costs, closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition.

---