2017 (12) TMI 335 - HC - Indian Laws

Renewal of license denied - application received, after the expiry of the licence period - Held that - Having regard to the orders made in W.P. filed by Harshini Recreation Club, represented by its Secretary against the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chennai and another, and after, obtaining opinion from the learned Advocate General, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (i/c), Chennai has sought for necessary amendment, to Rule 21 of the Tamilnadu Liquor (Licence & Permit) Rules, 1981. The proposed amendment intended to be made in Rule 21 is that, an application for renewal of licence, received, after the expiry of the licence period i.e. 31st March of the concerned year, will not be considered and that the licence, already granted will be deemed to be cancelled. In the light of the decisions, the amendment proposed, fortifies our view that, as per the existing rule, belated applications for renewal of licences, can be entertained, subject to the applicant, offering good and sufficient reasons for the delay and on payment of additional fee of 25% of the prescribed licence fee, ie., an application filed even after 31st March , can be considered. Amendment is yet to be made. Existing rule position, as on today, in Tamilnadu Liquor (Licence & Permit) Rules, 1981, has been understood by the department and therefore, amendment has been sought for. Going through the reasons, assigned by the writ Court, we do not find any merit in the instant writ appeals.Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the orders rejecting applications for renewal of FL.3 licenses for the year 2015-16.
2. Interpretation of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence & Permit) Rules, 1981.
3. Authority of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to condone delays in renewal applications.
4. Validity of applications submitted after the expiry of the license period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of the Orders Rejecting Applications for Renewal of FL.3 Licenses for the Year 2015-16:
The court examined the rejection of renewal applications based on the delay in submission. The writ court emphasized that "rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties" and that delays should only invalidate applications if they are due to malafide reasons or unexplained satisfactorily. The court found no malafide intention in the petitioners' delayed applications and noted that the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981 do not set a strict outer time limit for renewal applications, unlike other tax statutes.

2. Interpretation of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence & Permit) Rules, 1981:
The court interpreted Rule 21, which requires a license holder to apply for renewal at least one month before the expiry. However, the rule also allows the licensing authority to admit delayed applications if there are "good and sufficient reasons" and upon payment of an additional fee. The court referenced multiple legal precedents to assert that a proviso should be read in conjunction with the main enactment to understand its full scope and intention.

3. Authority of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to Condon Delays in Renewal Applications:
The court highlighted that the Commissioner has the authority to condone delays in renewal applications, provided the delay is justified with good and sufficient reasons and an additional fee is paid. The court noted that there was no specific outer limit mentioned in the existing rule that prohibits considering applications filed after the expiry of the license.

4. Validity of Applications Submitted After the Expiry of the License Period:
The court addressed the submissions by the government advocate that applications for renewal must be made within 30 days before the expiry of the license and that no application should be entertained after the license expires. The court, however, pointed out that the existing rule allows for the consideration of delayed applications, reinforcing this with a letter from the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise seeking an amendment to Rule 21 to explicitly state that applications received after 31st March will not be considered. This proposed amendment indicates that the current rule does allow for some flexibility in considering delayed applications.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming that the existing rule permits the consideration of delayed renewal applications if justified with good reasons and an additional fee. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise was directed to process the renewal applications in accordance with the law, as directed by the writ court. The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in their entirety and the authority of administrative bodies to exercise discretion within the framework of the law.