Smt. Rubi Singh vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Rubi Singh, holds an FL-4(A) license for 'Moon City Club'. On December 8, 2023, an Excise patrolling party raided the club and found that sealed liquor was being served to non-members, violating license terms. The club's in-charge admitted guilt. Subsequently, the Collector (Excise) suspended the petitioner's license on December 12, 2023. On December 22, 2023, the Commissioner (Excise) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner regarding the alleged misuse of the license. The petitioner challenged the suspension order and the subsequent show cause notice, arguing a lack of prior hearing and the pendency of parallel proceedings for a single misconduct.

Held

The Court considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It noted that a raid was conducted on December 8, 2023, followed by an investigation, recording of statements, preparation of a panchnama, and filing of a charge sheet, wherein the club in-charge admitted guilt. The Collector (Excise) cancelled the petitioner's license on December 12, 2023, and subsequently, the Commissioner (Excise) issued a show cause notice on December 22, 2023. The Court found that since the in-charge of the club had admitted guilt, there was no necessity for a prior notice to the petitioner before the cancellation of the license. The Court also noted the State's submission that only one proceeding was pending before the Commissioner (Excise), making the petitioner's contention of parallel proceedings incorrect. The Court concluded that the petitioner was aware of the actions taken against her. Considering the facts and legal principles, the Court found no case for interference. However, it granted the petitioner liberty to raise all her defenses before the Commissioner (Excise) within 15 days, and the Commissioner was directed to pass an order in accordance with the law within a further period of 15 days. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of suspension of the petitioner's license dated December 12, 2023, passed by the Collector (Excise) is bad in law for not affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to its issuance, as mandated by Section 31(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915? 2. Whether the issuance of a show cause notice by the Commissioner (Excise) on December 22, 2023, for the same alleged misconduct, while the license was already suspended by the Collector (Excise), constitutes parallel proceedings and is therefore vitiated? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Section 31(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, requires an opportunity of hearing before license suspension, which was not provided. They argued that the immediate suspension after the raid, without notice, was illegal. Furthermore, they argued that having two concurrent proceedings for the same offense, one by the Collector and another by the Commissioner, was improper. Reliance was placed on Digvijay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, Gwalior Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of MP, and Sukhlal v. Collector. State's arguments: The State argued that a raid was conducted, a panchnama prepared, witness statements recorded, and the club in-charge admitted guilt. They contended that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, and the Collector's order of suspension was followed by a reference to the Commissioner for appropriate decision, implying only one proceeding was pending before the Commissioner. They also argued that the charge sheet was filed on the same day as the raid, and the in-charge's admission of guilt obviated the need for a prior show cause notice to the petitioner.