# Mayoor Ahu v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 609
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3684 of 2024
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mayoor-ahu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53182
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Non speaking order-License of the petitioner
for wholesale vend of country liquor cancelled-
and the security deposit was forfeited --entire
case is based upon the interception of a truck
belonging to the Co-operative Company -the
St.ment made by the driver - without there
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being any material either alleged by the driver
against the petitioner or there being any
allegation to that effect in the show cause
notice-in the absence of any allegation- the
cancellation of the license is wholly arbitrary and
illegal-impugned order quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

## Text

4 All. Mayoor Ahu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
609
Jal Vidyut Nigam v. Raj Kumar Rajinder
Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 449 )

8. Considered the aforesaid and
perused the records.

9.
Upon
due
consideration
of
following facts of the case, which born out
from the record, this Court is of firm view
that the 'Patta' to the petitioner was illegally
provided as he was not eligible person in
terms of Section 198 of the Act of 1950. It
is for the following facts/reasons:-

(i) On 26.11.1993 the 'Patta' in
issue was approved with regard to the land
i.e. Gata No. 2669 area 2 Bigha situated at
Village Methi Tikur, Pargana and Tehsil
Safipur, District-Unnao.

(ii)
Whereas
from
the
document(s)
mentioned
in
quoted
paragraph(s) of the 'affidavit in response',
in paragraph 7(v) of this judgment, the
position which appears is as under:-

(a) The petitioner was not the r/o
Village Methi Tikur, Pargana and Tehsil
Safipur, District-Unnao, where land i.e.
Gata No. 2669, in issue, is situated.

(b) In fact the petitioner was the
r/o Village Korari Khalan, Pargana-Asiwan
Rasulabad,
Tehsil-Hasanganj,
DistrictUnnao.

(c)
The
petitioner
was
not
'landless agricultural labour' on 26.11.1993
(the date of approval of 'Patta' in issue), as
he purchased three properties through
registered sale deed(s) dated 10.04.1992,
26.12.1992 and 14.04.1993.

(iii) The facts aforesaid, have not
been refuted by the petitioner.

9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds that if interference is caused in
the impugned order(s) on the grounds
indicated above including the ground of
limitation as also the ground based on
principle of Res-judicata, the illegality in
providing the 'Patta' to the petitioner would
be revived, which was on account of fraud
played by the present petitioner and
principle in this regard is that fraud vitiates
every solemn act.

10. Accordingly, the present petition is
liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed. No
order as to costs.

11. The Court records the valuable
assistance given by Ms. Urmish Shankar,
Research Associate, attached with me in
drafting this judgment and finding out case
laws applicable in the present case.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 609
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 3684 of 2024
AND
Writ C No. 3683 of 2024

Mayoor Ahu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pranjal Krishna

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Non speaking order-License of the petitioner
for wholesale vend of country liquor cancelled-
and the security deposit was forfeited --entire
case is based upon the interception of a truck
belonging to the Co-operative Company -the
St.ment made by the driver - without there
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being any material either alleged by the driver
against the petitioner or there being any
allegation to that effect in the show cause
notice-in the absence of any allegation- the
cancellation of the license is wholly arbitrary and
illegal-impugned order quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. Jay Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(Writ-C
No.5098 of 2017)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel.

2. The petition being Writ-C No.3684
of 2024 has been filed challenging the
order dated 27.03.2021 whereby, the
license of the petitioner for wholesale vend
of country liquor in District Budaun has
been cancelled and the order dated
23.02.2024 whereby, the revision filed
against the cancellation order has also been
dismissed.

3. The Writ-C No.3683 of 2024 has
been filed challenging the order dated
31.03.2021 whereby, the license of the
petitioner for wholesale vend of country
liquor in District Sambhal has been
cancelled and the order dated 23.02.2024
whereby, the revision filed has also been
dismissed.

4. Both the petitions arise out of
the similar orders, as such, both are being
decided by means of this common
judgment.

5. For the brevity, the facts of
Writ-C No.3684 of 2024 are noted. The
petitioner is the CL-2 License Holder
(Wholesaler) for the District Badaun for
the calendar year 2020-21 and similarly
for the District Sambhal for the same
calendar year and was operating in terms
of the Rules which are known as The
Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of
Licences for Wholesale of Country
Liquor) (Thirteenth Amendment) Rules,
2020 (in short 'the Rules 2020'). It is
claimed that a confidential trip was
received with regard to some of the
trucks going to Unnao carrying country
made liquor with a gate-pass. On
investigation, certain statements were
made by the drivers of the said truck and
on the basis of the said statements, a
search was conducted at the premises of
the petitioner and a prima facie report
was given on 04.03.2021 (Annexure-2 to
the writ petition), wherein as many as
four discrepancies were noticed. In the
terms of the said inspection carried out,
the petitioner was served with a show
cause notice on 05.03.2021, wherein, it
was indicated that on the basis of the
search
carried
out
on
04.03.2021,
following discrepancies were noticed:

 "1- साइनबोडट ननयमानुसार नहीं लगा पाया गया।

 2- अनभलेखानुसार स्र्ाक से 3670 V/V
तीव्रता व 200 नमली0 धाररता के 1980 पौवे कम पाए गए।

 3- गोदाम कक्ष के अन्दर कैमरे नहीं लगे पाये गए।
बाहर लगे दोनों कैमरो की ररकानडिंग का बैक-अप नहीं रखा गया
है। कैमरे की मेमोरी में नदनांक 12.02.2021 से अद्यतन
ररकानडिंग सुरनक्षत है। कैमरे का I.P. एड्रेस नवक्रेता द्वारा उपलब्ध
नहीं कराया गया। सम्बनन्धत ननवास संलग्न है।

 4-अनग्न सुरक्षा हेतु आवश्यक अनग्नशमक यन्त्रों
का प्रबन्ध नहीं पाया गया ।"

6. It was also stated that on the
interception of the truck, some information
4 All. Mayoor Ahu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
611
were received by the driver of the said
truck, wherein, he had indicated certain
irregularities
committed
by
the
manufacturer of the liquor. It was also
noticed that the irregularities were noticed
in
the
books
of
account
of
the
manufacturer. It was also noticed that in
terms of the first information reports
registered with FIR No.97 of 2021, under
Section 60 of the Excise Act and FIR
No.98 of 2021, under Section 420, 467,
468, 471, 477-A IPC, it was noticed that
the liquor was being transported to CL-2
godowns illegally and based upon the said,
a view was formed that the liquor
manufactured by the manufacturer was
being transported, which resulted into loss
of revenue to the State. It was also alleged
that in collusion with the manufacturer of
liquor, the illicit liquor was affixed with
forged barcodes and with one gate pass, the
liquor was transported twice, which was
illegal and resulted into the loss of the
revenue of the State Government.

7. It was also alleged that the
action was proposed against the petitioner
in terms of the provisions contained in Rule
16 of the Rules 2000. The petitioner gave a
reply to the said show cause notice,
denying the allegations and specifically
stated that the inference drawn based upon
the interception of the truck and the
statements of the driver, in any way, did
not implicate the petitioner or link him with
the offence in question. It is also on record
that subsequently, the petitioner had
approached this Court at Allahabad by
filing Writ Tax No.261 of 2021, wherein a
plea was taken that the allegations levelled
against the petitioner in the show cause
notice was compoundable, however, the
Court without entering into the merits
noticed that the petitioner has already
approached the Commissioner (Excise) and
directions were issued to take a decision on
the application filed by the petitioner. The
said order was passed on 25.03.2021.
Subsequent to the passing of the said order,
an order came to be passed by the
Commissioner, U.P. Excise being order
dated 27.03.2021, which is on record as
Annexure-7. By means of the said order,
the Commissioner noticed the order passed
by the High Court, the allegations levelled
in the show cause notice, the reply
submitted by the petitioner and thereafter it
was recorded that certain facts were
relevant for adjudication. While doing so,
in para 4, it was recorded that some report
have been submitted by the SIT as a
preliminary report, wherein, it is alleged
that liquor is being transported by violating
the relevant rules. On the basis of the said
report, an order came to be passed holding
that the petitioner was found guilty of
violating conditions 1, 4, 10, 21, and 23
and consequently, the license of the
petitioner was cancelled and the security
deposit
was
forfeited
in
the
State
Government. The petitioner challenged the
said order by preferring revision before the
State
Government,
which
too
was
dismissed by means of the impugned order
dated 23.02.2024. The said orders are under
challenge before this Court.

8. The Counsel for the petitioner
argues that the show cause notice was
vague. No allegation specific to the
petitioner was levelled. He argues that the
inference drawn based upon the FIR and
the
statements
of
the
drivers
were
whimsical. It is further argued that none of
the conditions of the license granted to the
petitioner as noticed in the order were
violated, even if for the sake of the
argument, all the allegations are treated to
be correct. It is further argued that in terms
of the Rule 2020 all the offences alleged
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against the petitioner, even though are not
admitted, would be compoundable and thus
the action of forfeiting the security are bad
in law. He further argues that the power
exercise for cancelling the license is
contrary to the mandate of Section 16 and
as of the infractions mentioned in Section
16, which can lead to cancellation, ever
existed in the case of the petitioner. He
places reliance on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh vs
State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.5098
of 2017), decided on 06.07.2022. He thus
argues that the order of confiscating the
sureties deserves to be quashed, inasmuch
as, the license already come to an end
cannot be renewed.

9. The Counsel for the petitioner
also argues that copy of the SIT report
heavily relied upon was never made
available to the petitioner and are never
supplied to him and in fact, the said SIT
report was filed after the cancellation order
was passed.

10. Learned Standing Counsel, on
the other hand, justifying the order
impugned argues that after the detailed
analysis of the allegations levelled, an order
has been passed. He further argues that as
huge loss has been caused to the State
exchequer by unscrupulous people, in
which the petitioner was also engaged, the
steps were rightly taken to protect the
interest of the State Government. He
further argues that even certain Officer,
who are also alleged to be involved, are
under
suspension
and
departmental
proceedings are going on. In the light of the
said, he argues that the writ petitions
deserve to be dismissed.

11. Considering the submissions
raised by the parties and recorded above, it
is clear that the license was granted to the
petitioner
subject
to
the
conditions
mentioned in the license, which are
contained as Annexure-1 in both the writ
petitions, as well as the Rules, which are
framed and applicable and from time to
time and The Uttar Pradesh Excise
(Settlement of License for wholesale of
Country Liquor) Rules, 2020.

12. A perusal of the license
cancellation order in the context of the
show cause notice reveals that the show
cause
notice
was
confined
to
four
allegations as recorded above and were said
to be in violation of Rule 16 (ka), (kha),
(da) and (chha) of the Rules 2020. The five
allegations
levelled
do
not
entail
cancellation of license and are mere
infractions, which are referable to the list of
compoundable breach as mentioned in
Clause nos.4, 5, 7 and 17 of the Rules.
Even the other allegation with regard to the
transportation of goods and the interception
of the goods, which are carrying the goods
of a Company and the statements made
therein, no specific allegation was levelled
against the petitioner so as to warrant the
invocation of any of the clauses mentioned
in
Rule
16(1)
which
can
lead
to
cancellation of the license.

13. It is also worthwhile to note
that the order of cancellation, which
records that there was a violation of
condition no.4. The order records that the
wholesale country liquor was to be
supplied through pass P.D.-25A and the
records thereof shall be kept, a finding was
recorded that the goods were transported
without a valid P.D.-25A, which was in
violation of condition no.4 of the license. In
terms of the show cause notice, there was
no allegation levelled to that effect and
thus, the finding is without any allegation
4 All. Mayoor Ahu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
613
in the show cause notice or maligned to
allege the same.

14. The impugned order further
records that there was a violation of
Condition No.10 of the condition of the
license, which prescribes that the licensee
shall prepare and issue computer generated
transport pass in triplicate in the form
prescribed by the Excise Commissioner in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 11,
in which name of the retailer, date of issue,
purchased quantity and the consideration
fee involved shall be entered, whereas the
same was violated by the petitioner. The
said reasoning is also bereft of any
allegation levelled in the show cause notice
and without there being any material either
alleged or recorded in the impugned order.

15. The third reasoning for passing
the cancellation order is the violation of
Condition No.21, which prescribes that the
licensee shall install active C.C.T.V.
Cameras near opening gate and within
godown of licensed premises which could
easily
be
monitored
from
Excise
Headquarters, which has been found to be
violated in the case of the petitioner. The
said allegation was also not even levelled in
the show cause notice. In the absence of
any allegation to that effect and there being
any material to establish the violation on
that count, the order impugned cannot be
sustained.

16. The next reasoning recorded
was that there was a violation of Condition
No.23,
which
prescribed
that
the
consignments of country liquor from
distilleries of U.P. or BWCL-1 licenses of
other states settled in Uttar Pradesh other
states shall be transported only through the
vehicle fitted with Global Positioning
System (GPS). It was recorded that the
petitioner has violated as he has received
the liquor from the vehicle which did not
have GPS. The said finding is also perverse
and without there being any allegation in
the show cause notice or any material
whatsoever to allege and establish the
violation against the petitioner and thus in
absence of any allegation levelled in the
show cause notice and without there being
any material to allege and establish the
contravention at the instance of the
petitioner, the said order could not have
been sustained.

17. All the above reasoning as
recorded in the cancellation order appears
to have been taken in the inspection carried
out in the petitioner's premises, however,
the same was never made a part of the
show cause notice and thus the finding
recorded based upon the infractions is
wholly arbitrary.

18. The order passed by the
revisional authority, does not consider
these aspects in totality. The entire case
against the petitioner is based upon the
interception of a truck belonging to the Cooperative Company Limited, Saharanpur
and the statement made by the driver of the
said vehicle without there being any
material either alleged by the driver against
the petitioner or there being any allegation
to that effect in the show cause notice. In
the
absence
of
any
allegation,
the
cancellation of the license is wholly
arbitrary and illegal. Thus, the order dated
27.03.2021 & 23.02.2024 challenged in
Writ-C No.3684 of 2024 and the orders
dated 31.03.2021 & 23.02.2024 challenged
in Writ-C No.3683 of 2024, cannot be
sustained and are accordingly quashed.

19. The forfeiture of the security
deposit as has been done by means of the
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order shall be returned to the
petitioner within a period of two months
from the date of petitioner moving an
appropriate application.

20. The amount payable to the
petitioner on account of wrongful seizure
of the goods at the time of cancellation of
the license shall be returned to the
petitioner in accordance with the Rules.

21. The petitioner may move an
appropriate
application
before
the
Commissioner, Central Excise for refund of
the money payable in terms of the Rules for
the goods that were seized at the time of
cancellation which shall be decided and if
found payable, shall be paid to the
petitioner within a further period of three
months.

22.
The
writ
petitions
stand
allowed in the above terms.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 614
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ - C No. 4944 of 2023

R.S.
Filling
Station
Indian
Oil
Corporation
Ltd.
Kheri
&
Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Abhinav Trivedi, Anshuman Singh, Ashok
Kumar Singh, Geetika Yadav, Radhika
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manish Jauhari

Opportunity of hearing-The petitioner was
appointed as a retail outlet dealer by Indian
Oil Corporation- inspection was also carried
out on the petitioner's outlet-order the retail
outlet dealership of the petitioner terminatedclarificatory e-mail, relied upon in the two
orders was never supplied to the petitioner
and was never made a relied upon document
in the show cause notice-impugned orders
quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. St. of Punjab Vs Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar; (2011) 14 SCC 770

2. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. Vs Pullareddy Service
Centre (2021) SCC Online AP 2909

3. M/s
Chaudhary
Filling
Point
Kazipur
through its Proprietor & anr. Vs St. of U.P.
through Principal Secretary, Food and Civil
Supplies & ors. decided on 30.01.2019 in
Misc. Bench No.27043 of 2018

4. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & ors.Vs M/s
Modern
Service
Station,
decided
on
06.03.2024 in Special Appeal No.456 of 2023

5. M/s Laltu Filling Station Vs U.O.I. & ors.;
2016 SCC Online Cal 626

6. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs Super
Highway Services & anr.(2010) 3 SCC 321

7. Writ-C No.20271 of 2018 (M/s Maharashi
Filling Station (Indian Oil Dealer) Vs Indian Oil
Corp. Ltd. U.P. St. Officer & anr.

8. M/s Kisan Sewa Kendra Sarai Dubaulia Vs
U.O.I. & ors.; Writ C No.32973 of 2018

9. M/s Shree Rajendra Agro Service Centre Vs
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. DB Special Appeal
Writ No.456 of 2023