Contempt plea filed against excise officers

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 28

Over a fortnight after a provision in the Punjab Excise Policy of 2016-17 was declared invalid, a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance of court directions was today filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In his petition against Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner DP Reddy and another respondent-officer, petitioner-contractor Amarjit Singh Sidhu alleged that the state Excise Department’s senior officials were defying the June 9 order by allowing the L-1A licensee to function and issue permit and passes.

Counsel Vikram Jain contended that L-1 or wholesale licensee was initially permitted to take liquor directly from the manufacturing company. But a new category of L-1A licence was created to purchase liquor from breweries and distilleries. It was mandatory for an L-1 wholesale licensee to purchase liquor from an L-1A licensee only. As per the offending clause declared invalid by a Division Bench, liquor manufacturing company or distilleries were authorised to issue a consent letter to just one entity for issuance of L-1A licence. The petitioner’s case was that the L-1A licence was created just to monopolise liquor trade in Punjab.

Jain added that it was held by the apex court that the previous system would be revived after an Act or a clause was held invalid. But in the present case, the Punjab Excise Department was continuing with L-1A licence system held invalid and inoperative, though the initial system of L-1 licence was required to be made operational. A legal notice-cum-contempt notice was sent to the Excise Department on June 13, but no reply had so far been received.

Jain said the department officials were required to be called to “explain their conduct and be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”.

In its judgment pronounced during the vacation, the Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal and Justice Raj Rahul Garg had made it clear that the creation of L-1A category between the distilleries and wholesale L-1 licensee to augment revenue and stop leakage could not be termed arbitrary; and the respondent-state was empowered to incorporate under-challenge sub-clause (ii) of clause 2.14 in the Excise Policy for 2016-17. But the sub-clause did not prescribe the manner or method for the distillery or the competent authority to issue the letter.