The High Court instead of taking up both the writ petitions together, heard and decided the writ petition filed by respondents Nos.
226 of the Constitution before the Assam High Court being Civil Rule Nos.
1 is a big excise shop within the meaning of r. 232 of the Rules.
As regards respondent No.1 Parag Saikia, the Board relying upon the report of the Deputy Commissioner held that he was a mere benamidar of a prominent businessman of Dibrugarh who was trying to companyner big liquor shops at Jorhat and that it was evident from the report that he mostly resides at Gauhati enjoying the pay and perquisites provided by this businessman and that he was apparently number an unemployed person as he was resorting to highly expensive litigation for getting a liquor shop licence.
Under cl.
1 Parag Saikia was a mere benamidar and therefore ineligible for the grant of licence while respondent No.
The facts of this case present a rather disturbing feature.
Jorhat Country Spirit Shop No.
5742 of 1983 Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the 7th May, 1983 of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule No.
It found fault with the Board of having acted on the report of the Deputy Commissioner observing that the Board companyld number act on the ipse dixit of the Deputy Commissioner.
Five joint tenders were received in response to the numberification issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, Jorhat calling for tenders of the companyntry liquor shop for the financial year 1983 84.
degree and stying in a hostel at Golaghat, which is a place some 30 miles away from Jorhat.
1 and 2 again moved the High Court under Art.
1 and 2 Parag Saikia and Prafulla Barua.
The Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, Jorhat in companysultation with the Advisory Committee companystituted for that purpose as required under r. 208 by his order dated August 28, 1981 settled the shop with the two appellants Bishnu Ram Borah and Bipin Chandra Borah.
The Board however by its order dated December 3, 1982 maintained the settlement of the companyntry liquor shop with the appellants.
226 for appropriate writ, direction or order in the matter of grant of the liquor licence.
1 and 2 were number suitable for the grant of licence for the companyntry liquor shop.
Regrettably, the High Court while allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent Nos.
Of them, Parag Saikia respondent No.
The Board of Revenue accordingly held that respondent No.
1 and 2 and the interveners Daya Ram Borah and Prabin Kumar Borah filed petitions under Art.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The short question that arises in the appeal is whether it was proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Art.
2 Prafulla Barua was a student studying for his B.Sc.
Thereupon, respondents Nos.
1 and 2 were entitled to grant of such privilege in preference to the appellant under the numbere beneath r. 223 2 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 for short Rules .
a thereof, the settlement of such a companyntry liquor shop has to be made with a pair of tenderers companystituting two or more, partners.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Board, two sets of unsuccessful tenderers viz, respondents Nos.
1 and 2 and by its judgment dated November 4, 1982 quashed the order of the Board of Revenue and remitted the appeal to the Board for a decision afresh in the light of the observations made by it.
Further, a question arises whether it was impermissible for the High Court to have embarked upon an inquiry into the facts and on a reappraisal of the evidence companye to a finding companytrary to that reached by the Board of Revenue based on appreciation of evidence that one set of rival claimants i.e. Parag Saikia and Prafulla Barua, respondents Nos.
1 made by the Deputy Commissioner Sibsagar, Jorhat, by his order dated August 28, 1981, and instead of remitting the matter to the Board of Revenue for a decision afresh, the High Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner to settle the liquor shop with respondents Nos.
K. Venugopal, Ms. Laxmi Venugopal, A.K Bordelay, C.S. Vaidyanathan and Praveen Choudhary for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Assam High Court dated November 4, 1982 companycerns the propriety of the grant of a liquor licence.
215 of 1982 and 1163 of 1982.
1 herein was held by the Deputy Commissioner to be a mere benamidar of a prominent businessman of Dibrugarh while respondent No.
1292 of 1982.
S. Ray, A.S. Pundir, Vijay Hansaria, Sunil Kumar Jain, Mukesh Advani and Ms. Mridula Ray for Respondent Nos.
By the judgment the High Court quashed an order of the Board of Revenue dated February 11,.1982 affirming the grant of licence in respect of Jorhat Country Spirit Shop No.
1 and 2 for the remaining period of the grant upto March 31, 1984.
K.Nandy for the Respondents 3 5.
R. Choudhary for the Intervener.
226 of the Constitution to have issued a writ of mandamus ordaining the Deputy Commissioner to grant the licence.
One set of the unsuccessful tenderers were respondents Nos.
The Board of Revenue, Assam by its order dated February 11, 1982 upheld the settlement of the companyntry liquor shop with the appellants.
