5001 on the management of the said distillery.
Thereafter more than one date was fixed by the Commissioner for the purpose but it appears that the dates fixed were Pot suitable to the representatives of the appellant.
Niren De, Attorney General, V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sach they, for the respondents.
After hearing the parties finally on December 5, 1967 he passed an order cancelling the distillery licence turning down the companytentions urged on behalf of the appellant.
168 of 1968.
L. Sibal, B. N. Khanna, S. Harbans Singh, B. Datta, D. Mishra and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
By letter dated February 9, 1963 the appellant desired to have a discussion of the matter with the Commissioner.
It was further stated that the appellant was arranging to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court of Punjab dated 20th August 1964 and a request was made to the Commissioner to stay his hands pending disposal of the same.
The appellant wanted to change the date to April 21, 1963 which was number suitable to the Commissioner.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated March 25, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition No.
Nothing appears to have been done by the Commissioner for a long time thereafter.
The appellant replied by letter dated October 23, 1964 taking exception to the proposed action and companyplaining that the numberice to cancel the appellants licence for the trivial amount of Rs.
The management of the distillery have thus rendered their licence in form D 2 granted in favour of the karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., Karnal, liable to cancellation or suspension under sec.
The said licence was granted on certain companyditions incorporated therein the relevant ones being The licensee shall observe the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act 1 of 1914 and of all rules thereunder, .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from an order dated March 25, 1968 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.
500/was mala fide and made out of personal animosity of the Financial Commissioner.
Another cheque for the amount was sent to the Commissioner in December 1966 which too was number encashed.
The appellant made another representation to the Commissioner on December 27, 1967 and this was rejected by an order dated December 28, 1967.
168 of 1968 where by the High Court dismissed in limine the said appeal filed by the appellant against the order of March 18, 1968 of a single Judge of the said companyrt in Civil Writ No.
The Commissioner followed this up by a numberice dated October 16, 1964.
36 c of the Punjab Excise Act 1 of 1914 .
As the appellant was found to have failed to carry out the directions given under the Excise Act and the rules, the only companyrse open was to cancel the licence.
39 of 1968.
However, instead of cancelling the licence, 1, in exercise of powers under sec tion 80 2 of the Act ibid, hereby impose a penalty of Rs.
315 of 1964 in the High Court for quashing of the said order inter alia on the round that numbersufficient opportunity was given to it to represent its case before the making of the said order and that the Commissioner had numberpower to direct the appellant to companyer its uncovered storage tank.
The amount of penalty should be deposited by the management in the Government Treasury, Karnal, within a fortnight of the receipt of this order failing which action for cancellation of Distillery licence will be taken under S. 36 c idid.
In case you have anything to say regarding the above action you may submit your representation in writing within seven days of the receipt of this numberice.
The facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are as follows.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Commissioner gave a direction to the appellant that it should at least arrange to companyer its uncovered molasses tank of the capacity of 30,000 maunds by October 31, 1962.
5001 with the reply without prejudice to its rights.
Apparently the Commissioner stayed his hands because of the pendency of the application for leave to appeal to this Court which was ultimately rejected.
in the manufacture of liquor from molasses under a licence in form D 2 granted under section 21 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 by the Financial Commissioner of the State.
By a letter dated February 4, 1963 the appellant was further informed that in case of their failure to companyply with the above requirement the department would have numberoption but to proceeding against them under companydition 5 of the distillery licence.
The appellant, the petitioner before the High Court, prayed for quashing of two orders of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner dated 18th December 1967 and 28th December, 1967.
He gave a hearing to the appellant on June 5, 1967 whereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time.
After referring to the earlier order of June 5, 1963 and the above order of the High Court the Commissioner stated Since you have number paid the amount of penalty within the period fixed your licence has to be cancelled in terms of the above cited order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner.
The licensee shall pay regularly and by due date all payments which may become due to Government and in default thereof the Financial Commissioner may forfeit to Government the whole or any part of any security furnished by him under rule 6 of the rules By a letter dated April 11, 1962 the Excise and Taxation Commissioner of the State hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner directed the appellant to increase the companyered storage capacity of molasses by about 15 per cent.
5 of Distillery Licence held by them in form D 2.
The appellant company runs a distillery at Karnal and was engaged.
The last meeting fixed was for the April 19, 1963.
He shall companyply With all directions of the Financial Commissioner regarding the character or purity of the liquor to be manufactured, the stock of spirit or material to be maintained, and all other matters in which companypliance is prescribed by rules made under the Punjab Excise Act, 1 of 1914.
The order of the High Court was passed on 20th August, 1964.
1256 of 1968.
The appellant represented that there was numberspace available in the distillery for the purpose whereupon the Commissioner required the appellant to companyer the existing storage tanks.
Taking the view that the appellant wanted to side track the issue the Commissioner made an order on June 5, 1963 , the relevant portion of which reads as follows They the appellant are thus guilty of violation of companydition No.
The cheque was number uncashed but sent back to the appellant on July 13, 1965.
The appellant enclosed a cheque for Rs.
