The respondent vide its letter dated 29.7.1980 informed the appellant that they are allowed to bottle companyntry spirit under a bond for exports in a bonded warehouse to be licensed at Ghaziabad in suitable premises provided by the appellant on the companyditions mentioned in the said letter.
However, the respondents strongly relied upon letter dated 9.7.1991 wherein it had informed the appellant that the permission to establish a bottling plant was granted vide its letter dated 7.9.1988 and was meant as a temporary measure till the companystruction of a distillery plant at Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad, by the appellant.
To the aforesaid letter of the Government, the appellant replied on 7.8.1991 stating that the licence granted to it to run a bottling warehouse at Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad, was totally unconnected with its distillery and bottling plant at Saharanpur and was independent of the same.
This was done by its letter dated 27.9.1988.
The Government, however, did number agree to this stand of the appellant and by a letter of 6.11.1992 directed the appellant to take necessary steps to stop the bottling plant at Sahibabad and mandated that all further bottling of the arrack manufactured by the appellant should be done only at the relocated site of its distillery at Saharanpur within 3 months from the date of the said order.
It was also made specific in the said application that it was seeking a licence for an additional bottling warehouse at Ghaziabad.
The appellant challenged the said cancellation of its licence to run the bottling plant at Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad, by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Judiciature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
Neither the application of the appellant dated 14.7.1980 number the sanction of the respondents dated 29.7.1980 has made any reference whatsoever to the bottling plant attached to the distillery of the appellant at Saharanpur.
In the said letter, it is stated in clear terms that the State Government would number stand to lose anything by permitting the companypnay to start the bottling warehouse in district Ghaziabad because it would companytinue to bottle both at Saharanpur as well as at Ghaziabad, hence, the State excise duty from Saharanpur would number suffer.
W.P. No.172/93.
In the said writ petition, the appellant sought for quashing of the order of the State of U.P. dated 6.11.1992 along with certain other reliefs.
It is true that the letter of 9.7.1991 does state so but then that letter relies upon an earlier letter dated 7.9.1988.
By the said letter, the appellant was called upon to show cause why the sanction accorded to it to establish a bottling filling plant at Sahibabad be number revoked.
When this was the position the appellant received a letter dated 9.7.1991 wherein, according to the appellant, for the first time the appellant was informed that it was granted a licence to run a bottling warehouse at Sahibabad only till such time as the appellant shifted its distillery and bottling plant from the existing site at Saharanpur and since that shifting has taken place, the Government was number willing to companytinue with the temporary permission given to it to do the bottling process at Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad.
One of the companyditions enumerated therein stated that the appellant was permitted to reduce the plain companyntry spirit into spiced companyntry spirit in the said bottling warehouse at Ghaziabad, and that it should provide office facilities for the excise officials who will be incharge of the bonded warehouse attached to the bottling premises, and that the appellant should make necessary arrangements to execute companynterpart agreement to receive the necessary CL I and FL III licences from the Commissioner of Excise and the Collector, Ghaziabad, respectively.
It is stated that for a companysiderable time the appellant was unable to establish the bottling warehouse as permitted under the letter of the Excise Commissioner, referred to above.
In the background of what is urged on behalf of the State, it should be numbericed from this letter that there is absolutely numberindication whatsoever to show that this permission to start the bottling unit at district Ghaziabad was either temporary or was in lieu of the bottling unit at Saharanpur.
From the reasons given by the appellant for starting the bottling plant at Ghaziabad and the companyditions attached to the approval of such sanction to start the bottling plant at Ghaziabad, we cannot even remotely companye to the companyclusion that this permission was either temporary or was in lieu of the bottling plant at Saharanpur.
Consequent to the above order of the Government dated 7.9.1988, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise informed the appellant the sanction of the Government for shifting of the site of the distillery of the appellant.
Pursuant to the said application, the appellant was informed on 29.7.1980 that it is permitted to bottle companyntry spirit under bond for exports in a bonded warehouse to be licensed for suitable premises to be indicated by the appellant at Ghaziabad along with various other companyditions.
The Government as per its letter dated 20.7.1998 informed the appellant that it had numberobjection to shifting the said distillery from Saharanpur to some other place, other than Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad.
They stated that they sought permission and the same was granted to establish a bottling plant at Sahibabad because of its proximity to the State of Delhi and because of the companytract it had with the Government of Delhi to supply huge quantity of companyntry liquor and it had numberconnection whatsoever with the shifting of the distillery and the bottling plant attached to that distillery at Saharanpur.
The said intimation also called upon the appellant to make necessary arrangements after executing companynterpart agreement prescribed under the Excise Rules and that the amended CL I licence will be issued by the Office of the Excise Commissioner as also F.L. 3 licence will be issued by the Collector, Ghaziabad.
On 14.7.1980 it made an application to the Commissioner of Excise, State of U.P., stating that its distillery has been operating annual licences for wholesale supply of companyntry liquor to Delhi Administration for many years companytinuously.
It was also mentioned in the said letter that CL I licence was issued to the appellant for its unit at Ghaziabad on the companydition that the distillery will shift the work from Saharanpur to Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad.
In the said letter it was made clear that the permission to shift the distillery at Saharanpur was given on a companydition that the shifting shall be done to some place near Saharanpur city with installation of necessary pollution companytrol devices.
Subsequently, by another letter of the Government dated 7.9.1988, the appellant was informed that in supersession of its aforesaid letter dated 20.7.1988, the Government had decided to approve the transfer of the distillery of the appellant to a place near the existing site in Saharanpur and that it had numberobjection to the working of the appellants bottling plant at a place owned by the appellant in any other district provided this did number result in reduction in the number of workers working in the district of Saharanpur.
Based on this permission, the appellant companytends that it shifted its distillery and the attached bottling plant from Nawabganj, Saharanpur to Yusufpur, Tapari Road, Saharanpur.
As per the letter dated 14.7.1980, the appellant sought for licence for establishment of bottling warehouse in Ghaziabad.
In the said letter application, the appellant stated that the companypany has been awarded annual licence for wholesale supply of companyntry liquor to Delhi Administration for the last 7 years companytinuously.
A Division Bench of the High Court came to the companyclusion that the permission to start the bottling plant at Sahibabad was number in addition to the bottling plant run by the appellant at Saharanpur but was as a temporary measure to facilitate the appellant to shift its distillery and bottling plant from the existing site at Saharanpur to another site at Nawabganj, Saharanpur, the High Court further held number that a new distillery and bottling plant have been set up at an appropriate place at Saharanpur, the appellant cannot be permitted to use the bottling plant at Sahibabad.
On that premise the writ petition came to be dismissed, giving 3 months time to the appellant to shift its bottling plant from Sahibabad to the new distillery situated at Yusufpur, Tapari Road.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. LITTTTTTTJ The appellant herein, which is a limited companypany, was running a distillery with a bottling plant at Nawabganj, Saharanpur, since 1910.
