9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Challenge to the restrictions imposed by the West Bengal Excise (Selection of Persons for Grant of License at New Sites for Retail Sale of Spirit and certain other Intoxicants other than foreign liquor on categories of licences and licence for Denatured Spirit) Order, 2000. - Interpretation of Rule 17 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of Licence for Retail Sale of Spirit and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 1993. - Validity of the Order of 2000 in light of the 1993 Rules. - Conflict between the Order of 2000 and Rules 10 to 13 of the 1993 Rules. - Whether the Order of 2000 is an executive order or a rule made under Sections 85 and 86 of the West Bengal Excise Act. - Consideration of compassionate grounds for granting excise licenses to individuals affected by the prohibition on certain substances. - Direction to the State Government to consider applications for new licenses on a preferential basis if existing licenses are surrendered. Analysis: The appeal before the Supreme Court concerned the challenge to the restrictions imposed by the West Bengal Excise (Selection of Persons for Grant of License at New Sites for Retail Sale of Spirit and certain other Intoxicants other than foreign liquor on categories of licences and licence for Denatured Spirit) Order, 2000. The respondents, holders of licenses under the West Bengal Excise Act, sought the right to sell foreign liquor but were informed that due to holding another excise license, they were ineligible. The High Court set aside the restrictions based on Rule 17 of the 1993 Rules, leading to the appeal. The main contention was the interpretation of Rule 17 vis-a-vis the Order of 2000. The State argued that the Order was issued under the powers of the West Bengal Excise Act and was akin to a rule, not an executive order. The Court agreed, stating that the Order, though termed as such, had the same force as a rule made under the Act, and the State Government had followed the necessary procedures. The Order imposed additional restrictions supplementing the 1993 Rules, which did not create vested rights for applicants. The Court emphasized that imposing restrictions on the number of licenses for dealing in intoxicants was in line with public policy and constitutional objectives. Therefore, the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition challenging the restrictions. However, considering the respondents' situation, having lost their previous trade due to prohibition, the Court directed the State Government to consider their applications for new licenses on a preferential basis if they surrendered their existing licenses. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal and directing the State Government to consider the respondents' applications for new licenses under the specified conditions.
|
