2003 (3) TMI 760 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Permissibility of shifting a wine shop from one area to another within the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
2. Ceiling on the number of wine shops in a specified area.
3. Locus standi of the petitioner.
4. Proximity of the proposed wine shop to places of worship or educational institutions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Permissibility of Shifting a Wine Shop:
The petitioner objected to the shifting of a wine shop license from Mahe to Madagadipat on the grounds of violation of Rule 209 of the Pondicherry Excise Rules. The court examined Rules 163 and 209, which allow shifting of shops with prior approval. However, the court interpreted "from one place to another" to mean within the same local area or Panchayat/Commune, not from one completely different area to another. The court concluded that shifting from Mahe to Madagadipat would result in an increase in the number of shops in the new area, which is not permissible under the rules.

2. Ceiling on the Number of Wine Shops:
The court analyzed Section 16 of the Pondicherry Excise Act and Rule 122 of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, which regulate the number of licenses based on localities. The court emphasized that the maximum number of licenses in an area is determined by the Excise Commissioner with government approval, considering factors like population and existing shops. The court rejected the argument that there is no ceiling on the number of shops in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, affirming that each locality can have only a specified number of shops.

3. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, being a rival trader, raised the issue of locus standi. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in M.S. Jayaraj v. Commr. of Excise, which expanded the concept of locus standi. The court held that the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the shifting of the shop, as the location of the shop affects his business and revenue obligations. The court dismissed the objection based on locus standi, affirming the petitioner's right to raise the issue.

4. Proximity to Places of Worship or Educational Institutions:
The petitioner argued that the proposed site for the wine shop was within the prohibited distance from a place of worship. The court noted that the second respondent's counter was vague and did not provide a positive statement regarding the distance. The court emphasized that the rule regarding prohibited distance must be strictly implemented in the public interest. The court criticized the state's defense that allowed the petitioner to violate the rule, stating that such defenses are not acceptable.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, ruling that the shifting of the wine shop from Mahe to Madagadipat was not permissible under the rules. The court emphasized the need for strict implementation of rules regarding the location of wine shops and rejected the state's defense based on the petitioner's alleged violations. The court affirmed the petitioner's locus standi and ordered that no costs be imposed, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions as unnecessary.