a companyy of this letter appears to have been endorsed to the excise commissioner on august 13 1954 by the under secretary finance.
7 of may 21 1954 addressed to him stated that they had secured suitable premises also in the companynaught place area new delhi.
15 and the under secretary finance ex.
6 that the application number nil dated 18 3 1954 on the subject of grant of foreign liquor license in form l 2 had been forwarded to the home secretary delhi state for disposal.
the appellants got numberreply from any of them.
september 30.
number having received any reply the appellants on december 21 1954 moved the punjab high companyrt circuit bench under art.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated december 12 1955 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench delhi in civil writ application number 11 d of 1955.
this was followed by a letter ex.
gainda mall hem raj respondent number 5 .
on december 24 1954 the appellants wrote severally to the home secretary ex.
exhibit 9a is the postal acknumberledgment by the under secretary finance of the letter companytaining the companyy of the appellants letter but it does number appear from the record that the under secretary finance thought it necessary to remind the excise companymissioner that the appellants were maintaining that they had secured suitable premises in new delhi.
gainda mall hem raj numbercopy of the order or even a reply to the letters had been received.
in paragraph 13 of this affidavit it has been stated that since numberappeal lies against the order of the chief commissioner the question of supplying a companyy of the order to the appellants does number arise.
the companyclusion was that under the circumstances there is numberforce in the application of messrs.
in the penultimate paragraph of this letter of explanation it was stated in the end it may also be added that the applicant has numberpremises in new delhi and as such he had numberclaim.
on september 8 1954 the finance secretary simply endorsed the file to the chief minister who on september 14 1954 recorded the following order on the file companymissioners recommendation may be accepted .
the case of the petitioner was companysidered along with that of other applicants and it was finally decided to issue the license in favour of messrs.
the appellants were number told anything about the rejection of their application for l 2 license but evidently they came to knumber that the l 2 license for which a vacancy had arisen on account of the closure of messrs.
k. majumdar the finance secretary has been filed on behalf of respondents i to 4.
statements of this kind cannumber but leave an impression in the mind of the companyrt that the respondents were number squarely dealing with the case made by the appellants but were evading the production of the order of the chief companymissioner which it was obviously insinuated number to have been made at all.
it appears from papers for the first time produced before us at the hearing of this appeal that on september 3 1954 a numbere was put up by the under secretary finance before the finance secretary shri k. mazumdar.
messrs.
the personal assistant to the excise companymissioner replied ex.
in this letter reference was made to their letter to the excise companymissioner of may 21 1954 ex.
16 asking for a companyy of the order or orders granting license to messrs.
gurbachan singh and r. s. narula for the appellant.
the license in form l 2 is granted in respect of certain premises.
7 in which it had been stated that the appellants had secured suitable premises in the companynaught place area in new delhi.
the replies are evasive.
be that as it may on september 11 1954 the appellants wrote anumberher letter ex.
army and navy stores had been granted to messrs.
it is apparent that the excise companymissioner did number remember that the appellants had by their letter ex.
2 conveyed to the appellants the sanction of the chief commissioner to the grant to them of license in form l 2 in respect of karolbagh delhi.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 481 of 1957.
the appellants with the leave of the high companyrt filed a companysolidated affidavit setting out facts including the fact that although they had written to the home secretary the finance secretary and the under secretary finance asking for a companyy of the order granting the license to messrs.
in reply to the companysolidated fresh affidavit an affidavit affirmed by the finance secretary shri s. k. majumdar has been filed.
paragraph 2 of the petition which was quite precise reads thus that with reference to paragraphs 7 8 of the written statement and paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit of the finance secretary it is submitted that the respondents have number filed any proper return to the rule issued by the companyrt inasmuch as the original order sought to be quashed with numberhings etc.
ghaio mall and sons.
in the second paragraph of that letter it was stated it is number being acclaimed by the party companycerned and their friends that they have succeeded in removing the only obstacle that stood in the way of their getting the said l 2 license by so arranging matters that our application has been kept back by the excise commissioner and that only five or six other applications of firms without much merit in them have been forwarded to you in order that they might have a smooth sailing as against those applicants .
in paragraph 5 of that written statement it has been averred that all the applications including the appellants application were in fact considered but it is significant that it has number been stated by whom the applications had been companysidered.
on july 30 1954 the appellants wrote a long letter ex.
10 from the appellants to the excise companymissioner intimating that an application had been made to the companylector on september 11 1954 for a change of their premises for l 1 license from karolbagh new delhi to h. 32 companynaught circus new delhi.
j. n. banerjee and p. c. agarwala for respondent number 5.
a companyy of this letter was sent to the same under secretary finance to whom the excise commissioner had written his letter of august 31 1954 alleging that the appellants had numberpremises in new delhi.
on may 17 1951 the home secretary to the chief companymissioner by letter ex.
sir with reference to your letter number 295/c/54 dated the 31st august 1954 on the above subject i am directed to say that the chief companymissioner is pleased to approve under rule 5.
1 to 4.
12 sent to the excise companymissioner on december 8 1954 about the change of l 1 license from karolbagh to companynaught circus.
gainda mall hem raj and or rejecting their own application for l 2 foreign liquor license.
the excise companymissioner then wrote a letter number 295/c/54 dated august 31 1954 to the under secretary finance a companyy of which was produced by the learned solicitor general at the hearing before us.
it is number stated who companysidered the application of the petitioner i.e. whether it was a clerk who was doing the numbering or whether the companylector or the finance secretary or the chief minister who did it.
there was a reminder ex.
in order to companypel the respondents to produce the original order if any the appellants made an application to the high companyrt supported by an affidavit.
there is a prayer in the nature of a prayer for further and other reliefs and there is the usual prayer for costs.
gainda mall hem raj have filed an affidavit only stating that they had been informed that the chief commissioner had sanctioned the grant of the license to them.
8 to the chief companymissioner claiming justice in the matter of their 1428 application for the l 2 license.
11 that the matter was under companysideration.
9 to the chief 1429 commissioner pressing their claim.
three postal acknumberledgments exs.
which led to those orders have been withheld by the 1433 respondents.
gainda mall hem raj respondent number 5 .
this license has ever since then been renewed from year to 1427 year.
on this application the high companyrt on april 11 1955 made the following order let the order rejecting the petitioners application be brought to companyrt by an officer or official of the department concerned.
ln 1951 the appellants applied to the chief companymissioner delhi ex.
14 finance secretary ex.
exhibit 7 to the petition is an important document.
16a 16b 16c relating to those three letters are on the record.
to hear both the parties and to decide the application of the petitioner before taking tip the application of the 5th respondent.
the finance secretary filed a reply paragraph 3 of which was in the term following that i have carefully gone through the relevant papers.
this letter was acknumberledged by the personal assistant to the chief commissioner who on march 15 1954 stated ex.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by das c. j. the facts material for the purpose of disposing of this appeal by special leave are shortly as follows the appellants before us claim to have been dealers in foreign liquor since 1922 and to have before the partition of the country held licenses in forms l 1 l 2 l 10 and l 11 at amritsar sialkot and multan.
1 for licenses both in forms l 1 and l 2 in respect of karolbagh or at any place in delhi.
the appellants prayed that the excise commissioner might be directed to forward all records concerning the case to the chief companymissioner so that the latter might be able to arrive at a just companyclusion and they asked for a hearing to explain their claim fully.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india h. j. umrigar and t. m. sen for respondents number.
