Madhya Pradesh HC Issues Contempt Notice To Tehsildar For Violating Orders By Allowing Liquor Vend To Operate In 'Sealed' Premises
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday (December 12) while hearing issued a contempt notice to a Tehsildar for wilfully disobeying court's earlier order by allowing a liquor vend to operate in a premises which was supposed to be sealed and vacated.
While the court asked the Tehsildar to file an explanation as to why he permitted a liquor vend to open, it however orally said that it seemed to be a fit case where not only a departmental but a vigilance inquiry was required against the officer, adding that appeared that the alleged action was to facilitate the shop owner to earn money.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf in their order said, “By order dated 03.12.2024, this Court noticing that the subject premises i.e. Commercial building containing ground + 3 + basement at...Vithal Market Arera Colony Bhopal had been sealed by the Tehsildar permitted M/s Smriti Associates to approach the District Excise Officer as well as the concerned Tehsildar to remove the excisable articles likely liquor from the premises. This Court further directed that on such a permission being granted by the District Excise Officer, the Tehsildar shall de-seal the premises and permit M/s Smriti Associations to remove the articles from the said premises and removal of articles shall be only after obtaining requisite permission from the District Excise Officer and under the supervision of the Officers of the Excise Department as well as concerned Tehsildar".
The court in its order noted that thereafter a complaint was received from the petitioner/Bank, that the Tehsildar had not only de-sealed the premises but had permitted the liquor vend to operate form the said premises. Pursuant to this the Tehsildar was asked to be personally present in court.
"The Tehsildar, is personally present before this Court. He states that a letter dated 05.12.2024 was received from the Assistant District Excise Officer stating that there was a loss to the exchequer of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupeees Ten lakhs) per day and accordingly, on 05.12.2024, he passed an order noticing the order passed by this Court and permitted the liquor vend to operate from the said shop for the period of 10 days. We are informed that the liquor vend has now been sealed by the Collector. The action of the Tehsildar, prima-facie, appears to be in contempt of the order of this Court dated 03.12.2024. Accordingly, show-cause notice is issued to the Tehsildar to show-cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated again him. Let the reply be filed within two weeks. The Tehsildar shall be personally present in Court on the next date of hearing," it added.
During the hearing on Friday the court asked the Tehsildar who was personally present as to how he was permitting the liquor vend to function. As the Tehsildar sought to apologize the court orally said, "No, no, there is no question of an unconditional apology in this case. We are not going to accept any unconditional apology. We had given you a limited order. Aur aap liquor vend chala rahe hain? (And you are running a liquor vend?)”.
The Tehsildar however replied, “Sir, it has already been sealed, sir. Sir, we have shifted it completely.” On the court's query as to when was the premises sealed, the official said, “Sir humne pura shift kardiya tha. Unhone 9th se shifting shuru kari…”
At this stage, the court orally said, “Inhone toh videos lagayi hain (There are videos). Videos me toh business chalrha hai(Videos show that a business is running). Puri lights jali hai aur pura staff present hai aur sara waha pe sale ho rahi hai(Lights are switched on, staff is present and sale is taking place). How did you permit this?”
The Tehsildar replied, “Sir abkari (excise department) ko diya tha humne ki aap 10 days me pura usko jaise bhi karke seal karke wapas hume khali denge.”
The court orally asked, “Aapko kya order diya tha? What was the order of this court?” The court thereafter asked the state's counsel as to how such an action was permitted. The counsel replied, “So far as his explanation is concerned, I also say that he has crossed the line.”
The high court then orally said that it will have to direct an inquiry against the Tehsildar. It noted, “See, the direction was, he will seal the brill. The premises were sealed by him. He, along with the excise officers, will permit moving up the stock. He has permitted the vend to be opened?”
The counsel appearing for the state thereafter referred to some documents and said that on December 5 there was a letter which was issued by the department (excise officer) who wrote to the Tehsildar that there was a loss of around Rs. 10 Lakh.
The court then asked the Tehsildar about his educational qualifications, to which the official said that he had completed engineering and MBA.
The court then said, “Ye jo aapko chitthi 5th December ko mili Sahayak Jila Abkari Adhikari (se), ye High Court ke division bench se senior ho gaya? Ki aap inka order maanenge or humara order nahi maanenge (This letter that you received, is that senior than the high court division bench? You will follow their order and will not follow ours (court)?".
As the Tehsildar sought to apologize the court said that it cannot accept his apology in this case. It thereafter asked the counsel,“Where is the Collector? We will direct the collector take an action against this officer. Junior officer gives him a letter ki humara 10 lakh ka nuksan ho rha hai, he will ignore the High Court's order?”
At the counsel tried to explain their stance, the court orally asked, “What was our direction? The direction was, he will only permit removal of the stock under the supervision of the...And he permits the vend to be opened?”
The counsel replied, “What thereafter has happened, on December 9 an application was moved and in that, it was mentioned that they have found the location where they will be shifting the shop.”
The court however remarked that it was not concerned with same. It said, “That is for the excise department. We had said this vend will be sealed, he had sealed it, we said only stock to be permitted to be removed...What action needs to be taken? There is no question of an explanation. No ignorance, he is a post-graduate. He must give an explanation how he passed this order. We want a written explanation from you, how did you permit it? By referring to our order, you are saying ki Jila Adhikari ko 10 lakhs ka nuksan hua toh main High Court ke order ko ignore kar rha hu”.
As the Tehsilar apologized for his actions, the court said, “No, you give a written explanation. This is something where action needs to be taken. It cannot be taken lightly like this.”
The counsel for the state meanwhile said, “So far as the shop is concerned that has already…they started shifting it on 9/12/2024 and it was a condition which he has even indicated in the order also that if it is not done within a period of 10 days, because what was happening sir…the stock was quite large, it was around Rs. 7-6 crores. And therefore, in order to effectively implement, to hand over the...”
The court said, “No, this is not effectively implement. This is clearly to facilitate the shop owner to earn money. See, we don't want to talk about things which are apparent has happened in this case. This could be a fit case with departmental, not only departmental, Vigilance enquiry is required against this officer. We want first for him to give a written explanation how he permitted this, and then we will consider what course of action to be taken.”
The case is listed on January 7, 2025.
Case Title: Bank Of Maharashtra And Others Vs Shri Avinash Lavanya And Others, CONC 333/2023
Click Here To Read/Download Order