STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus JAGJEET SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 16-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
JAGJEET SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 16, 2003 
[V.N. KH!-RE, CJ., BRIJESH KUMAR AND 
ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
U.P. Excise Act, 1910-Sections 24, 31and59-U.P. Excise Licenses 
(Tender-cum-Auction) Rules, 1991-Rule 34 amended in 1992 and 1998-
Remission of licence fees in case of closure of shops during the period of C 
curfew-Entitlement of-Held entitled to if al I the auctioned group of 
shops were closed and not otherwise-UP. Excise Manual; Paras 179 and 
190. 
The liquor shops of respondent-licensees were ordered to be 
closed under section 59 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 by the State during D 
the period of curfew imposed in the areas concerned due to communal 
disturbances. The respondents claimed remission of licence fees from 
the State for the period during which the liquor shops were closed. On 
refusal by the State, the respondents filed Writ Petitions before High 
Court. The High Court quashed the order refusing remission and E 
directed the State to reconsider the applications of the respondents for 
remission and to pay the amount to the respondents with interest. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Rule 34 as amended by the U.P. Excise Licences F 
(Tender-cum-Auction) (Amendment) Rules, 1992 does not contain any 
blanket bar against any claim of damages or remission on account of 
closure. The heading of the Rule mentions about no claim for delay in 
supply or closure or not opening of shop but its contents in clauses (i) 
and (ii) do not provide plainly that no remission or damages would be G 
payable for closure or non-opening of a shop. The manner in which 
clause (ii) is worded appears that it governs the shops auctioned in a 
group. It restricts the scope of claim of remission or damages in case 
a shop or some shops auctioned in a group remain closed for any 
reason. A group of shops is one whole and in case such group of shops H 
837 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A is only affected partially, no remission or refund of bid money can be 
claimed. Out of the group of the shops, if only some shops are closed 
or one shop is closed, there would be no claim for any remission. The 
language used for negating the claim in n~spect of pa~tial cf osure in 
relation to time or group of shops leads to the conclusion that case of 
B total closure would not be covered by Rule 34. On the contrary, no 
inference can be drawn that in case of total closure of a group of shops 
or for whole time in a day, it would entitle a licensee for remission or 
damages. All that can be said is that it is not impermissible. It may or 
may not be allowed, is to be decided on its own merits. But it would 
C not be possible to say that no such application for remission/damages 
would be maintainable as in the case of curtailment of time of a shop 
or closure of one or some of the shops in a group of shops. (849-A-G) 
1.2 The position which emerges on reading paragraphs 179 and 
190 of U. P. Excise Manual is that in some special cases, a remission 
D is permissible, if(he Excise Commissioner finds some merit in the claim 
and forwards it for orders to the State Government. The rules do not 
provide any such positive provision but only provides for cases in 
which remission cannot be claimed, namely where it relates to 
curtailment of hours of shops or partial closure of shops auctioned in 
E a group. Section 59 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 does not provide for 
any such claim for the closure but the licence issued under section 24 
of the Act contains a condition referable to section 31 of the Act again 
confers no right to claim for closure of shop on the days as specified 
in Condition no. 27 of the licence plus three more days . For the rest 
of the days or period, it leaves open the matter without any provision 
F therefor. This being the position under the provisions of the Act, the 
Rules and the Excise Manual, there is scope for the argument that Rule 
34 does not exclude the possibility of any claim for' remissio;'or 
damages on account of closure of a shop totally, which situation is not 
dealt with under Rule 34 as amended in 1992. [850-B-F) 
G 
1.3 Rule 34, as amended in 1998, clarifies that remission would not 
be claimed where an auctioned shop or some or all shops auctioned in a 
group remain closed. In absence of the provision, which now exists after -~ 
amendment in 1998, it could not be said that no compensation could be 
H claimed for the period prior to 1998

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.