1983 (4) TMI 300 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over liquor license obligations and location of liquor vend
- Compliance with Punjab Excise Act and Rules
- High Court's interpretation of the law and grant of relief
- Review petition and subsequent appeal

Analysis:
- The case involves a liquor licensee who participated in an auction for a country liquor vend but later objected to the opening of a nearby vend at Gulwati, claiming it would adversely affect business. The licensee filed a writ petition seeking closure of the Gulwati vend or remission of license fee. The High Court ruled that the vend at Gulwati was set up unlawfully without State Government sanction, causing damage to the licensee. However, the High Court did not order closure but granted partial remission of the license fee.

- The High Court's decision was based on the Punjab Intoxicants License and Sale Orders, 1956, particularly emphasizing the requirement of State Government sanction for opening new liquor vends. The court found no evidence of such sanction for the Gulwati vend. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting the authority of the Excise Commissioner to make decisions on vend openings under the Excise Act. The Court criticized the High Court's strict interpretation of the law and failure to consider the Commissioner's authority.

- The Supreme Court also criticized the High Court for not considering the licensee's participation in the auction with full knowledge and attempting to avoid contractual obligations. Referring to a previous decision, the Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be used to escape voluntarily incurred obligations. The Court found the High Court's grant of relief, altering the contract terms, to be unjustified and unsupported by evidence of breach of contract.

- Following the High Court's rejection of a review petition, the case reached the Supreme Court through an appeal. Despite the respondent's absence during the appeal hearing, the Court upheld the licensee's obligation to pay the bid amount and dismissed the writ petition, overturning the High Court's judgment and ordering costs to be paid by the respondent.