DB Kam esh Mohan v. Mrs. Rashm i Singh ot hers

This intra court appeal is filed by Mr. Kamesh Mohan challenging the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPMS No.1030 of 2025. The impugned order is extracted below:- Heard on Interim Relief Application, IA No.1 of 2025 Letter No.25673/7 respondent no.4, had It is the case of the petitioner that she had applied for CL-02 License for District Nainital. The Distillery, authorisation to her. The letter was processed and on 25.03.2025, Li-C.L.- 02/Licensee/Year 2025-26, of the respondent no.2, CL-02 License was permitted to be granted in favour of the petitioner subject to verification of the boundaries of the store, which, according to the petitioner, was done by In-charge Excise Officer on 27.03.2025, Annexure No.8, and it was forwarded to the respondent no.2, the Excise Commissioner, by the District Excise Officer, i.e., District Magistrate, the respondent no.3, on 27.03.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that in between, Annexure No.1, a communication was sent by the respondent no.2, the Excise Commissioner, seeking further queries with regard to authorisation for the purpose of granting CL-02 License in favour of the respondent no.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the processes with regard to grant of CL-02 License in favour of the petitioner were completed on 28.03.2025, because on that date, the District Magistrate, Nainital, had given a communication to 1 the respondent no.2, the Excise Commissioner, that even the boundaries of the store has already been verified pursuant to the communication that was made by the respondent no.2 on 25.03.2025, by which permission to grant CL-02 License in favour of the petitioner was granted by the respondent no.2, the Excise Commissioner. He would submit that in between, there was no occasion to re-agitate the issue. Instructions were sought from learned State Counsel. Today, learned State Counsel gives a statement that before CL02 License, as such, could be granted the petitioner, on 28.03.2025, a communication was received from the respondent no.4, the Distillery, by which the authorisation, given in favour of the petitioner, was withdrawn. This is strange. If the authorisation was withdrawn by the respondent no.4, and this letter was received in the office of the respondent no.2 on 28.03.2025, what was the occasion to issue the communication dated 27.03.2025, Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, prior to it. Having considered this and attending factors, this Court is of the view that till the next date of listing, the process of grant of CL-02 License qua the in abeyance. District Nainital, Interim relief application stands disposed of, remain accordingly.”

2. Mrs. Rashmi Singh (respondent no.1) had filed aforesaid writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- License/Year Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of “I. Certiorari quashing the impugned notification letter No.26,403/Sat-Lai-S-48/Ab.Niti./Year 2025-26 of the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand addressed to District Magistrate, U.S. Nagar (Annexure-01 of the impugned order/Letter writ petition) and 2025-26 No.26605/Sat-Lai-CL-2 the Excise Dehradun Dated 29.03.2025 Commissioner of Uttarakhand and II. Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce the entire records relating to the grant of License CL-02 to the Respondent No.5 and issue order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings in respect of the CL-02 of the Respondent No.4 in favour of the Respondent No.5.”

3. In the writ petition, Mrs. Rashmi Singh had challenged a letter dated 27.03.2025 issued by Excise Commissioner. By the said letter, District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar was informed that the last date of 2 issuance of F.L.-2/C.L.-2/F.L.-2(0), which was earlier fixed as 27.03.2025 is extended till 29.03.2025; for grant of CL-02 License, authorization letter by the Distillery is essential in view of Rule 22.2 of the 2025 Rules, however the persons named in the letter have not furnished the authorization letter from Distillery, therefore, CL-02 License for some Districts could not be issued and the District Magistrate was requested to issue CL-02 License, as per the applicable Rules, to the eligible persons at the earliest to protect the interest of excise revenue.

4. Before the writ court, Mrs. Rashmi Singh stated that she had applied for CL-02 License for District Nainital, a Distillery (M/s Indian Glycols Ltd.) has given authorization in her favour; her application for license was processed on 25.03.2025; license was permitted to be granted to her subject to verification of boundaries of the go-down; verification done by In-charge Excise Officer on 27.03.2025 and the In-charge Excise Officer made recommendation to the District Excise Officer for issuing license to her vide letter dated 27.03.2025. Thus she contended that the Excise Commissioner was not justified in issuing the letter dated 27.03.2025.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that as per Clause 22.2 of the Excise Rules notified by the State Government on 05.03.2025, authorization from a Distillery is one of the essential condition for issuance of CL-02 License; the authorization earlier issued in favour of writ petitioner was cancelled by the Distillery (M/s Indian Glycols Ltd.) vide letter dated 25.03.2025 and the said Distillery gave authorization in favour of the 3 appellant vide letter dated 29.03.2025. He thus submits that in the absence of authorization from a Distillery, writ petitioner became ineligible for CL-02 License while appellant was entitled for such license on the strength of authorization by M/s Indian Glycols Ltd., therefore, Excise Commissioner granted permission to District Excise Officer, Nainital to issue CL-02 License in appellant’s favour vide order dated 29.03.2025 and the District Excise Officer was directed to verify the boundaries of his go-down and submit a report so that license can be issued without any further delay. He further submits that after physical verification of the site offered by appellant for setting up the go-down, he executed a registered lease deed in respect of the property and thereafter In-charge Excise Officer, Haldwani issued a letter to District Excise Officer recommending to grant CL-02 License in faovur of appellant. He refers to the document enclosed as Annexure 7 to the affidavit filed in support of Interim Relief Vacation Application, which was issued by Excise Commissioner on 03.04.2025.

6. Perusal of the said document reveals that appellant was granted CL-02 License for District Nainital for the Financial Year 2025-26.

7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that in the writ petition, the fact that CL-02 License was granted to the appellant on 03.05.2024 was suppressed and petitioner made false averment in para 13 of the Interim Relief Application that she has reasons to believe that till

03.04.2025, CL-02 License was not issued to respondent no.5, however in prayer no.2, as made in the writ 4 petition, quashing of entire proceedings in respect of CL- 02 of respondent no.4 granted in favour of respondent no.5 was sought. Thus, he submits that due to false impression created by the writ petitioner, learned writ court passed the order on 08.04.2025 whereby the process of grant of CL-02 License qua District Nainital was kept in abeyance till next date of listing.

8. Learned counsel for appellant submits that after grant of CL-02 License, appellant has invested huge amount of money in setting up the go-down and purchasing stocks which are required to be maintained by CL-02 Licensee but on account of the interim order passed on 08.04.2025, authorities are not permitting him to carry out his business. He further submits that appellant had no notice of the writ petition and the interim order dated 08.04.2025 was passed in his absence, due to which writ petitioner was successful in getting ex-parte interim order in her favour, which has resulted in closure of the lawful business of the appellant.

9. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated

08.04.2025 reveals that learned writ court was not apprised about the fact that CL-02 License was issued in favour of the appellant on the strength of authorization given to him by M/s Indian Glycols Ltd. Similarly the letter dated 25.03.20254 issued by Indian Glycols Ltd., whereby authorization earlier given to writ petitioner was cancelled, was not placed before learned writ court. 5 10. Since appellant was granted CL-02 License by the competent authority as per applicable policy and the authorization earlier given in favour of writ petitioner was reportedly cancelled by the concerned Distillery on

25.03.2025, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that appellant is entitled to some relief so that he may run his lawful business on the strength of license granted to him by the competent authority. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal with a request to learned Single Judge to consider the Interim Relief Vacation Application filed by appellant on the next date fixed. We however provide that restraint order passed on

08.04.2025, impugned in this appeal, which has resulted in closure of appellant’s business, shall be kept in abeyance till 15.06.2025 or disposal of the Interim Relief Vacation Application, whichever is later. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and appropriate order shall be passed in the writ petition, independently untrammeled by any observation made by us in this order. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

20.05.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH 6