Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 196765 (ALL)

MADAN TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. EXCISE U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/9551/2025 · 2025-10-06

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Sangeeta Chandra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9551 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-Respondents. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer : "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties specially the opposite party nos.2 and 3 not to harass and torture to the petitioner by showing that the petitioner is the father of Satendra Tiwari, while the petitioner has no son in the name of Satendra Tiwari, nor the petitioner has ever been taken the license of country made liquor from the excise department, nor the petitioner has any son in the name of Satendra Tiwari." It is the case of the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of House No.69 Ashakunj Raipur, Raja, Jail Road Bahraich. He has no son by the name of Satendra Tiwari. He does not know any person by that name, nor does any person named Satendra Tiwari reside in his house. The petitioner has only one son, namely, Vinay Tiwari. The District Magistrate, Bahraich wrote a letter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Bahraich on 21.08.2025, showing Satendra Tiwari as the son of the petitioner, Madan Tiwari. It was stated that Satendra Tiwari had obtained a license for country-made liquor and had failed to deposit the license fee of Rs.97,580/- and therefore, a recovery notice was to be issued against him. It has been submitted that the petitioner is an old and infirm person and is being forced to face an enquiry, although the corporator of the concerned area has issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner stating that he has no son by the name of Satendra Tiwari. Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court the instructions dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hom Narayan Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Madan Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Excise U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 24.09.2025 sent by District Excise Officer, Bahraich, wherein it has been stated that the license was initially issued to Satendra Tiwari son of Madan Tiwari on the basis of documents submitted along with his application. In those documents, Satendra Tiwari had mentioned same house number as that of the petitioner i.e. the petitioner's residential address. The affidavit of Satendra Tiwari also indicated his identity as the son of Madan Tiwari. A copy of the Rashan Card issued in the name of Madan Tiwari, son of Nathuni Tiwari, was also enclosed with the said application. On the basis of such application, a country-made liquor license was issued to him. There is a recovery of licnese fee amounting to Rs.97,580/- due from Satendra Tiwari son of Madan Tiwari. A recovery certificate was issued in this regard in the year 2003. However, the said recovery certificate was returned after the petitioner stated that there is no person by the name of Satendra Tiwari residing in his house and that he had no connection with any such person who had falsely shown himself as the petitioner's son. From the instructions, it is evident that after the earlier recovery certificate was issued, a fresh enquiry was initiated in the matter regarding the recovery of license fee. The order in this regard was issued by the Excise Commissioner on 06.08.2025, pursuant to a meeting held on that date. The Licensing Officer/District Magistrate, Bahraich, thereafter by his letter dated 21.08.2025, directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Excise Inspector to submit a fresh report in the matter. It appears that only for the purpose of conducting this enquiry afresh, the petitioner has been issued notice to appear and state his face. No coercive action, as of now, is being taken against the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry initiated on 21.08.2025 strictly in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter take a decision in the matter. October 6, 2025 Mahesh WRIC No. 9551 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench