2017 (8) TMI 1109 - HC - Indian Laws

License for retail outlets - license fees - delayed payment - liquor shops - whether the appellants-writ petitioners were willing to pay the license fee for the period from 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 as, in such an event, they would stand on par with the other licensees of the four undisposed A-4 retail outlets who were granted licenses from 01.04.2017 and, at the same time, no loss would be caused to the public exchequer - Held that - the appellants-writ petitioners, on instructions, would request this Court to decide the Writ Appeal on its merits, and express the appellants-writ petitioners unwillingness to pay the license fees for the three month period from 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017, as they did not carry on business in these two shops, during the said period. As that would amount to the petitioners retaining control over two A-4 retail outlets simultaneously, and would result in the State Government being deprived of its revenue which they would have otherwise received on granting licenses for these two shops from 01.04.2017 i.e for three months between 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017, we see no reason to grant the petitioners the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. We see no justification in permitting the petitioners to retain their right over these two A-4 retail shops from 01.04.2017, and in paying license fees three months thereafter i.e., only from 01.07.2017 onwards, as that would result in loss of revenue, to the public exchequer, for the period 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rules governing the allotment of A-4 retail outlet licenses.
2. Dispute regarding the allotment of A-4 retail outlet licenses in Nagiri Town.
3. Allegation of discrimination against the petitioners in the allotment process.
4. Consideration of public revenue and larger public interest in the judgment.

Interpretation of Rules Governing Allotment:
The judgment involves a dispute over the interpretation of rules governing the allotment of A-4 retail outlet licenses. It is noted that an A-4 retail outlet license can be granted for only one shop to one applicant. The judgment clarifies that licenses were granted to successful applicants based on the lease period of the previous licensees and the status of undisposed shops. The court analyzed the provisions and timelines for license grants, emphasizing the adherence to the rules in the allotment process.

Dispute Over Allotment in Nagiri Town:
The case revolves around the allotment of A-4 retail outlet licenses in Nagiri Town. The petitioners were granted licenses for a specific period, and a notification was issued inviting applications for additional outlets due to a Supreme Court directive. The petitioners participated in the drawal of lots and were selected for two shops along with others. However, a discrepancy arose regarding the allotment period for these shops, leading to a legal challenge by the petitioners. The judgment delves into the specifics of the allotment process and the petitioners' contentions.

Allegation of Discrimination:
The petitioners alleged discrimination in the allotment process, claiming that they were singled out for differential treatment. They argued that they should have been granted licenses for the two shops based on their successful participation in the drawal of lots. The court examined the grounds of discrimination raised by the petitioners and evaluated the validity of their claims in light of the established rules and procedures for license grants.

Consideration of Public Revenue and Public Interest:
The judgment highlights the importance of considering public revenue and larger public interest in deciding the case. The court weighed the implications of granting the relief sought by the petitioners, emphasizing the potential loss of revenue to the public exchequer if the petitioners were allowed to retain control over the two shops without paying the required license fees. The decision to dismiss the petition was influenced by the need to safeguard public revenue and uphold the integrity of the licensing process.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the interpretation of allotment rules, the dispute over license allotment in Nagiri Town, the allegation of discrimination, and the consideration of public revenue and public interest. The court's decision to dismiss the petition underscores the significance of upholding legal provisions, safeguarding public revenue, and maintaining fairness in licensing procedures.