2019 (12) TMI 851 - SC - Indian Laws

Shifting of Liquor shops from one region to another - contravention of Rules 163 and 209 of the Excise Rules - whether the permission granted by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 Excise Authorities to transfer the licensed shop from one region to another in the Union Territory of Puducherry was permissible under the Excise Act and Rules? HELD THAT - Rule 209 permits shifting of the liquor shop from one place to another, subject to approval by the Licensing Authority on the terms and conditions contained therein - The proviso to Rule 209 states that the Licensing Authority may permit shifting of the licensed premises, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of license, and payment of 1/4th of the license fee for such shifting. There is no restriction or prohibition either in the Excise Act or Rules on the Licensing Authority from granting permission to shift the licensed shop from one region to another, subject to the conditions being complied with - A fortiori, a licensee can shift a liquor shop from one region to another within the Union Territory of Puducherry, subject to the prior approval of the Competent Authority. The expression from one place to another is not restrictive, and does not curtail the power of the Licensing Authority to grant permission for shifting the licensed shop from one region to another in the Union Territory of Puducherry so long as the conditions stipulated by the Excise Act and Excise Rules, as also the conditions for grant of a license are complied with. The shifting should not result in the increase in number of liquor shops beyond the maximum number of licenses which may be fixed for a particular area under Rule 122 of the Excise Rules. In the present case, the Licensing Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) vide Letter dated 07.06.2018 has granted permission to shift the F.L.1 Licensed premises of the Appellant from Mahe to Karaikal, subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in Rule 209 of the Excise Rules - also it has been informed by the Counsel for the Appellant and the State that all conditions under the Excise Act and Rules have complied with. There are no prohibition in the Excise Act or Rules for shifting the F.L.1 Licensed premises from one place to another. The permission dated 07.06.2018 for shifting the licensed shop from Mahe to Karaikal granted by Respondent No. 3 is legal and valid - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of shifting a licensed liquor shop from one region to another within the Union Territory of Puducherry under the Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 and the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Application for Shifting:
The Appellant, an F.L.1 License holder, sought to shift his licensed liquor shop from Mahe to Karaikal. The application was filed under Rules 163 and 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970. The Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Mahe forwarded the application to the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Karaikal for site inspection.

2. Objections Raised:
A resident of Karaikal (Respondent No. 1) objected to the shifting, citing that the move was against public interest and contravened the Madras High Court's interpretation in K. Murali v. Commissioner (Excise)cumSecretary, which restricted shifting within a local area, not across regions. The objection also referenced the Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Balu, which imposed restrictions on liquor shops' proximity to highways.

3. High Court Proceedings:
Respondent No. 1 and another individual filed writ petitions in the Madras High Court to restrain the shifting. The High Court directed the Excise Authorities to consider the objections in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Karaikal rejected the objections, leading to further writ petitions by Respondent No. 1. The High Court quashed the permission granted for shifting, interpreting the term "place" restrictively to mean within the same region.

4. Statutory Provisions:
The Puducherry Excise Act, 1970, and the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970, were examined. The term "place" under Section 2(22) of the Excise Act includes various types of structures but does not define territorial limits. Rule 209 allows shifting of licensed premises with prior approval and payment of a fee, without explicitly restricting inter-regional shifts.

5. Supreme Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions and concluded that the term "place" is not restrictive and does not limit the Licensing Authority's power to permit shifting across regions within the Union Territory of Puducherry. The Court emphasized that the Excise Act and Rules should be read as a whole, and if the legislature intended to restrict shifting to within a region, it would have explicitly stated so.

6. Precedent and Similar Cases:
The Court noted that similar permissions for shifting liquor shops from other regions to Karaikal had been granted in the past, indicating a consistent administrative practice.

7. Consideration of Public Interest and Compliance:
The Court considered the assessments made by the Excise Authorities, including the suitability of the new site and compliance with all conditions under the Excise Act and Rules. The site at Karaikal was found to be compliant, with no proximity to highways, religious, or educational institutions, and no anticipated law and order issues.

8. Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no prohibition in the Excise Act or Rules against shifting the licensed premises from one region to another. The permissions granted by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Mahe, and Karaikal were deemed legal and valid. The Court allowed the Civil Appeals, setting aside the Madras High Court's order that quashed the permissions for shifting.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeals, set aside the Madras High Court's order, and upheld the permissions granted for shifting the licensed liquor shop from Mahe to Karaikal. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →