LexKARNAL DISTILLERY CO. LTD. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
861 A KARNAL DISTILLERY CO. LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. October 16, 1969 B [S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND J. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] c D E F G H Punjcb Excise Act 1 of 1914-Cance/lation or suspension under s. 36(c) of licence granted under s. 21-ReVoking or foregoing cancellation of licence on payment of penalty under s. 80(2)-Provision whether authorises cancellation Qf licence subject to payn1ent of penalty. The appellant company \'an a distillery at Karna! under a licence in form D-2 granted to it under s. 21 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The Excise and .Taxation Commissioner gave certain directions to the company in ·regard to storage of molasses purporting to be directions given under R. 37 of the Punjab Distillery Rules 1962 made under s. 59 of th"' aforesaid Act. Section 36(c) of the Act provided that the Commissioner· could cancel or revoke a licence in case of breach of its terms by the: ficen~ee. Under s. 80(2) of the Act, however, the cancellation or SUS·· pension of any licence permit or pass under s. 36 "may be foregone or: revoked" at the discretion of the authority concerned on payment of suchr penalty as the authority may fix. In view of the failure of- the appellant company to comply with the directions aforementioned given to it by the. Commissioner the latter on June 5, 1963 pa:ised an order holding that the con1pany was guilty of violation of condition 5 of its licence and the· lice:'!ce was therefore liable to cancellation under s. 36(c) of the Act. The order howevC:r purported to impose a penalty of Rs. 500 under sec·· tion 80( 2) of the Act instead of cancellation of the licer.:>e. The company filed a \vrit petition in the High Court. On merits the petition Was dis-- mis~ed but the High Court observed that the penalty , could not be re- co•,;ero!d as an arrear of land revenue and the only action that could be taken on failure to pay the penalty was the cancellation of the licence. On October 16, 1964 the Commissioner sent a notice to the company infolr- ,,,;ng it that by reason of the company's default in not paying the pena'ty witcin t'1e period fixed by the order dated June 5. 1963 its licence had to be cancelied in terms of the said order. However the Commissioner stayed his hands in vie\v of an application for special leave to appeal to this Court filed by the company before the High Court. The petition was dillmissed. Thereafter the Commissioner by order dated December 5, 1967 passed an order cancelling the distillery licence. The appellant made another representation which was rejected by the Commissioner on J?~ce:i1ber 28: 1967. AgJinst th~se orders the company filed a writ peti-. !Ion m the High Court but the Smgle Judge as well as the Division Bench decidei.I against it. The company by special leave appealed to this Court. Allo;\ing: the ... pp~al, HELD : Assuming that R. 37 permitted the Commissioner to give to·· the appeJJant comonny a direction about storage of molasses etc. any violation of that direction could be met with an Order for cancellation or suspension of the licence under s. 36 of the Act. Hav'ing passed such an order tbe Commissioner could under s. 80(2) revoke or forego the said canc•llation if penalty . was paid. The word revocation is only apposite when it is intended to repeal, annul or withdraw some order whic~1 h~d allreadv become effective. To "forego" according to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary means'· to go past, to neglect, slight, to let go,. 862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970]2 S.C.R. ·give up etc." Foregoing, canceilation or suspension therefore would mean giving up or undoing the effect of the cancellation,. [866 H-867 CJ Section 80(2) does not authorise the Commissioner to make a candi- . tional order in the form in which he purported to do by his order of June 5, 1963. There was no cancellatiOn of licence by that order. The Commissioner mereI.1 intimated the appellant that its licence had become liable to cancellation or suspension but in·stead of cancelling the licence . he was imposing a penalty of Rs. 500 to be paid within a fortnight failing which action· for cancellation would be taken under•. 36(c). 1he. Com- .missioner's show cause notice dated October 16, 1964 P'roceeded on the basis that as the penalty had not been paid within the period fixed, the 'licence had to be cancelled in terms of the order of June 5, 1963. Section 36 of the Act does not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.