1 2025:CGHC:50865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3267 of 2022 Rajendra Kumar Patel S/o Tulsi Ram Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Ddu Nagar College Ward, Gole Chowk, Daganiya, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax (Excise), Secretariat, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner (Excise) Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 -The Collector (Excise) District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant District Excise Officer Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13.10.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: 2 “10. RELIEF (S) SOUGHT: a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue calling for the records of the court below pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of certiorari do issue quashing the impugned order dated 7.6.2022 (Annexure P-1) being perverse and not sustainable in law and in effect direct the respondent authorities to refund license fee for the closure period of bar and also value of liquor seized by respondent authorities in the interest of justice. c. Cost of the proceedings. d. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by respondent No.1, by which, the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Excise), Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) was upheld and the order cancelling the FL-3 license issued in favour of the petitioner was found to be validly cancelled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that orders impugned passed by the respondents-authorities are perverse and illegal. The sole piece of evidence, if it can be said so, against the petitioner is alleged CCTV footages, but said evidence is not admissible as per law for any purpose whatsoever as per mandatory provision contained in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. There is no specific evidence available to 3 prove/establish that the petitioner has violated any of the conditions of license or provisions/law. Orders impugned passed by the respondents-authorities are in violation of principles of natural justice as the evidence/documents sought to be relied upon or relied upon by authorities have not been given to the petitioner or copies. Evidence of various persons has been relied upon by authorities but opportunity of cross-examination has not been granted to the petitioner, therefore, the orders impugned cannot be termed as reasoned order, particularly when reply filed by petitioner has not been considered in its true perspective. Petitioner has denied all allegations in his reply and stated specifically that at the relevant point of time cleaning and maintenance work was going on in the bar. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was granted FL-3(A) license to run a bar in the name and style of "IP Club Restaurant Bar" Naya Raipur (CG). The license was issued to the petitioner on 27.03.2021, which was valid from 01.04.2021 upto 31.03.2022, however, petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of said Licence. A bare perusal of said license annexed with the petition would show same was issued under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (Excise Act 1915) with certain terms and conditions, which were to be strictly adhered by the licensee 4 i.e., the Petitioner herein, however, during the course of inspection by the competent authority, it was found that the petitioner was operating the bar in contravention of the terms and conditions stipulated in the licence on several counts. On 08.11.2021, 12.11.2021 and 14.11.2021, the bar operated by the petitioner was found to be running beyond the fixed time period of 11:00 PM, in violation of clause 9(A) of License. On 13.11.2021 also the bar was found open beyond the prescribed period of 11:00 PM and it was running up till 03 AM. As per Clause 10 of the License, in case of violation of any terms of the license or violation of the provisions of the Excise Act, 1915 the license shall be liable to be cancelled or suspended. The answering respondents had issued detailed show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation with respect to the aforesaid allegations and after giving proper/sufficient opportunity of hearing, impugned orders has been passed suspending his licence. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including the impugned order. 6. Section 31 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 reads as under: “31. Power to cancel or suspend licence, etc. (1) Subject to such restrictions as the State Government may prescribe, the authority granting any licence, permit or pass under this Act may cancel or suspend it - 5 (a) if any duty or fee payable by the holder thereof be not duly paid; or (b) in the event of any breach by the holder thereof or by any of his servants, or by any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, of any of the terms or conditions thereof; or (c) if the holder thereof, or any of his servants, or any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, is convicted of any offence under this Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to revenue, or of any offence (under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 (II of 1930), or under the Indian Merchandise Marks Act, 1889 (IV of 1889), or under any section which has been introduced into the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Section 3 of that Act; or (d) if the holder thereof is convicted of any cognizable and non-bailable offence; or (e) if the holder thereof is punished for any offence referred to in clause (8) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (VII of 1878); or (f) where a licence, permit or pass been granted on the application of the holder of any lease granted under Section 18, on the requisition in writing of such lessee; or (g) if the conditions of the licence, permit or pass provide for such cancellation or suspension at will.(1-A) Before making an order cancelling or suspending a licence permit or pass under sub-section (1), the authority aforesaid shall record in writing the reasons 6 for the proposed action, furnish to the holder thereof a brief statement of the same and afford him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2). (2). Where a licence, permit or pass held by any person is cancelled under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c) or clause (e) of sub-section (1), the authority aforesaid may cancel any other licence, permit or pass granted to such person under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force relating to excise revenue, or under the Opium Act, 1878 (1 of 1878). (3) The holder of a licence, permit or pass shall not be entitled to any compensation for its cancellation or suspension, nor to the refund of any fee paid or deposit made in respect thereof. (4) Where a licence is cancelled or suspended under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) - (a) the fee payable for the balance of the period for which such licence would have been current but for such cancellation or suspension, may be recovered from the ex-licensee as excise-revenue; (b) the Collector may take the grant under management or resell it at the risk and loss of the ex- licensee, but any profit realised by such management or resale which is not in excess of the amount recovered under clause (a) for such period shall be paid to the ex-licensee.” 7 7. Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Rajkumar Gajadhar Prasad vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 SCC OnLine MP 71 had observed thus: “6. Before construing the provision aforequoted, I must remind myself of the constitutional position that obtains in regard to liquor cases. In Bishnurum Bora's case, (1984) 2 SCC 488: AIR 1984 SC 898 it has been categorically held, "the grant of a liquor licence was not a matter of right but was in nature of privilege". Evidently, whatever statutory right the plaintiff has is to be read in the provision aforequoted of section 31(1-A). Beyond that, it is not possible at all to import any consideration of principles of natural justice because that exercise is also interdicted positively by another holding in Bishnuram Bora's case (supra). The requirement contemplated under the said statutory provision, in my view, is as follows; and beyond that no further right can be claimed by liquor licensee:- (a) A prior notice shall be served on the licensee proposing to cancel or suspend the licence; (b) He has to be afforded a reasonable opportunity in regard to the action proposed and as such when any cause is shown against the action proposed, hearing must be given to him; (c) In order to afford him an opportunity of showing cause, in the notice to be served on him he is to be 8 furnished with "a brief statement of the proposed action; (d) An order in writing shall be rendered in cancelling the licences and reasons (e) No order can be passed on any extraneous reason as is not contemplated in terms of the statute or the Rules the licene issued thereunder.” 8. It is evident from the available record that petitioner was granted FL-3(A) license to run a bar with certain terms and conditions, which were to be strictly, however, during inspection by the competent authority, it has been found that on certain dates the bar was found to be running beyond the fixed time period, which is in contravention of the terms and conditions stipulated in the licence. The show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner and after giving proper/sufficient opportunity of hearing to him, the respondent-authority concerned vide order dated 12.01.2022 has cancelled/suspended the licence of the petitioner as per the provision contained under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order and considering the foregoing observation/discussion, this Court finds no perversity or illegality warranting interference in the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-