Central Club (Registered), Chandigarh v. The Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ----Respondents Present:- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Standing Counsel for U.T.Chandigarh. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

This petition seeks a mandamus to renew Bar licence of the petitioner-Club for the year 2009-10.

Case of the petitioner is that a Community Centre building was leased out to the petitioner Club at a nominal lease of Rs.25/- per year which was extended from time to time at revised rate of rent and on that account, demand notice was issued for recovery of the outstanding amount. The petitioner Club made representation against enhancement of the lease amount and the matter is still not finalised. Lease of the petitioner was cancelled on 7.7.2004. On appeal filed against that order was sent to the Finance Secretary, who vide order dated 25.9.2008 directed that possession of the Community Centre Building be taken from the petitioner. The petitioner sought renewal of the Bar licence but the same was not allowed CWP No.8457 of 2009 (O&M) 2 even though there was no valid reason for not allowing the same. Vide letter dated 6.5.2009, the petitioner was informed that request for renewal of L- 12C licence had been disallowed because possession of the building had been declared illegal and eviction proceedings were pending under the provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the PP Act’). According to the petitioner, arbitrary increase in the lease amount from retrospective effect cannot be made a ground for refusal of renewal of Bar licence and Bar licence was liable to be renewed.

Notice was issued. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, stand taken is that under section 43 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and Punjab Liquor License Rules, 1956, no person can claim renewal as of right. Lease of the premises occupied by the petitioner stood terminated on 7.7.2004 and proceedings were pending under the provisions of the PP Act, which was a relevant consideration for non-renewal.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no valid reason for rejection of the prayer for renewal.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that renewal of the liquor licence was not a right which could be enforced, particularly when the lease of the petitioner-Club itself has been terminated, which is a matter pending under the provisions of the PP Act.

We are of the view that if lease of the petitioner Club itself has been terminated which order is till operative, refusal to renew the liquor licence cannot be held to be arbitrary. In these circumstances, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing respondent No.2 to grant renewal of liquor licence. CWP No.8457 of 2009 (O&M) 3