9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Grant of L-2 liquor license, Competent authority, Validity of the order, Non-production of records, Jurisdiction and power.
Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of L-2 Liquor License: The appellants, who had been dealers in foreign liquor since 1922, sought an L-2 license in Delhi after the partition of India. They initially held licenses in various forms in Amritsar, Sialkot, and Multan. In 1951, they applied for L-1 and L-2 licenses in Delhi and were granted an L-2 license for Karolbagh, Delhi, which was renewed annually. In 1954, they applied for another L-2 license due to a vacancy created by the closure of Messrs. Army and Navy Stores. Despite securing premises in Connaught Place, their application was not considered favorably, and the license was granted to Messrs. Gainda Mall Hem Raj. 2. Competent Authority: The appellants contended that their application and those of other applicants were never placed before the Chief Commissioner, the only authority empowered to grant L-2 licenses under the Delhi Liquor License Rules, 1935. They argued that the Chief Commissioner did not apply his mind to the applications, and the decisions made by the respondents lacked the Chief Commissioner's concurrence as required by the Government of Part C States Act. 3. Validity of the Order: The respondents, including the Chief Minister and the Excise Commissioner, purported to exercise jurisdiction not vested in them by law. The appellants sought writs to quash the order granting the L-2 license to Messrs. Gainda Mall Hem Raj and to direct the Chief Commissioner to properly consider their application. The respondents failed to produce any specific order by the Chief Commissioner, leading to suspicion about the validity of the license grant. 4. Non-Production of Records: The respondents were evasive in producing the original order or any records indicating that the Chief Commissioner had made the decision. Despite court orders, the respondents only produced a letter from the Under Secretary, Finance, which was insufficient to prove that the Chief Commissioner had made the order. The court emphasized that non-production of records defeats the purpose of certiorari writs, which aim to bring up records for examination by a superior court. 5. Jurisdiction and Power: The court found that the Chief Commissioner did not make any order granting the L-2 license to Messrs. Gainda Mall Hem Raj. The records showed that the decision was made by the Chief Minister and communicated by the Under Secretary, Finance, without the Chief Commissioner's concurrence. The court held that the letter from the Under Secretary could not be treated as the Chief Commissioner's order and did not meet the authentication requirements. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that there was no valid order granting the L-2 license to Messrs. Gainda Mall Hem Raj. The vacancy created by the closure of Messrs. Army and Navy Stores remained unfilled. The court directed the Chief Commissioner to fill the vacancy by inviting applications from all interested parties, including the appellants and Messrs. Gainda Mall Hem Raj, and to grant the license to the most suitable party. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were ordered to pay the appellants' costs.
|
