9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Collector praying that he should be permitted to continue the supply of country liquor for a period of five years commencing April 1, 1968. The Collector recommended the appellant's case to the Government on November 18, 1967 for extension of his licence for a further period of only two years. On December 22 1967 the Collector of Excise, Tripura, Agartala wrote to the appellant that he had been appointed by the Chief Commissioner a contractor for the supply of country liquor to the excise vendors for the territory of Tripura for five years i.e., from 1-4-68 to 31-3-73 at the existing rate i.e., Rs. 2.25 only being the cost of one L.P. litre of country liquor of 40 U.P. strength for sale to the excise vendors" of that territory from the Central Warehouse at Agartala. On January 13, 1963 the appellant was asked by the Collector of Excise to deposit Rs. 1,000/as security and Rs. 2,500/as licence fee for five years at the rate of Rs. 5001per year. On March 13, 1968 the appellant was accordingly granted a licence to establish a warehouse for the storage in bond and wholesale vend of country spirit by import and for supply to the excise vendors in the territory of Tripura for five y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise." Feeling aggrieved the appellant challenged this order in the court of the Judicial Commissioner by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which was dismissed by the impugned order. The order of the Collector dated July 6, 1970 was challenged by the appellant on a number of grounds, including invalidity of s. 43 of the Act and r. 164A of the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Judicial Commissioner in an exhaustive order came to the conclusion that the appellant had been given a contract for five years on the basis of his application dated November 6, 1967 without issuing a public notice as required by the proviso to S. 22(1) of the Act. This violation of the statutory provision invalidated the contract or the privilege of selling country liquor secured by the appellant. According to the Judicial Commissioner this ground by itself was enough for throwing out of the appellant's writ petition. The contention that s. 43 of the Act does not envisage withdrawal by the Collector of the licence pertaining to, the privilege granted by the Chief Commissioner of Tripura under s. 22 of the Act was also negatived by the Judicial Commissioner as in his opinion t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner is no doubt given the power of granting the exclusive privilege of manufacturing and selling country liquor or intoxicating drugs as mentioned in cls. (a) to (e) but sub-s. (2) of this section in express terms provides that no grantee of any privilege under sub-s. (1) shall exercise the same unless or until he has received a licence in that behalf from the Collector or the Excise Commissioner. In view of this provision it is obvious that it is the Collector who grants the licence within the contemplation of s. 43 and, therefore, it was this very officer who rightly granted the licence to the appellant and is empowered to withdraw the licence under s. 43. As sec. 43 provides for withdrawal of a licence for any cause other than those specified in s. 42 of the Act we consider it proper to reproduce both these sections. They read "42. Power to cancel or suspend license, permit or pass. (1)' Subject to such restrictions as the Chief Commissioner may prescribe, the authority who granted any license, permit or pass under this Act may cancel or suspend it- (a) if it is transferred or sublet by the holder thereof without the permission of the said authority; or (b) if any dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of compensation, as the Excise Commissioner may direct. (3)When a license is withdrawn under sub-section (1), any fee paid in advance, or deposit made by the licensee inrespect thereof shall be refunded to him after deducting the amount (if any) due to the Government." Before dealing with the contention relating to Art. 19 we consider it proper to dispose of the argument founded on the ejusdem generis rule and Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was contended by Shri Sen that the only way in which s. 43 can be saved from the challenge of arbitrariness is to construe the expression "any cause other than" in s, 43(1) ejusdem generis with the causes specified in cll. (a) to (g) of s. 42 (1). We do not agree with this submission. The ejusdem generis rule,strives to reconcile the incompatibility between specific and general words. This doctrine applies when (i) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects of the enumeration constitute a class or category-, (iii) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration; (iv) the general term follows the enumeration and (v) there is no indication of a different legislative intent. In the present case. it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re withdrawing the licence is equally. unacceptable for reasons just stated. The section does not contemplate two separate notices. The order dated July 6, 1970 also clearly state, that 15 days' notice was being given to,'the licensee regarding the intention of the Collector of Excise to withdraw his licence and it is also specifically mentioned in the order that the said licence would be withdrawn witheffect from September 1, 1970. The fact that tinder the notice the licence was to be withdrawn more than 15 days after the date of the notice did not cause the appellant any prejudice and indeed no objection was raised on this score. The contents of this order also quite clearly show that the appellant had ample opportunity of showingcause against the intention of the Collector to withdraw the licence with effect from September 1, 1970. Rules of natural justice on which the appellant's counsel relied for his grievance vary with the varying constitutions of statutory bodies and the rules prescribed by the legislature under which they have to act and the question whether in a particular case the rules of natural justice have been contravened must be judged not by any preconceived opini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 and cancellation or suspension under cl. (g) is in accordance with the conditions of the licence,, pen-nit or pass in question. Sub-section (3) expressly negatives the right to, compensation and also to refund of fee and deposit authority granting a licence under the Act to withdraw the same for any cause other than those specified in s. 42 on remitting a sum ,equal to the amount of fee payable for 15 days. It is no doubt true that in s, 43 there, is no express mention of the precise grounds on which the licence can be withdrawn. But in our opinion keeping in view the nature of the trade or business for which the grant of licence under the Act is provided the cause contemplated by s. 43 must be such as may have reasonable nexus with the object of regulating this trade or business in the general interest of the public. In the determination of reasonableness of restrictions on trade or business regard must be had to its nature, the conditions prevailing in it and its impact on the societ as a whole. These factors must inevitably differ from trade to trade and not general rule governing all trades or businesses is possible to lay down. The right to carry on lawful trade or business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had, it may be recalled, secured his licence for the maximum period of five years as provided by r. 22(4) of the Tripura Excise Rules, 1962 for a nominal annual sum. On the withdrawal of the licence, fee for 15 days was remitted to him and the fee paid in advance and the deposit made were also directed to be refunded as provided by s. 43(3). But this apart, the learned Judicial Commissioner has also held in the judgment under appeal that since the contract for five years had been given to the appellant in complete violation of the statutory provision enacted in the proviso to s. 22(1) of the Act he could not claim to be a holder of any valid contract or of. a valid conclusion. Shri Mukherjee, however, did make a faint attempt the conclusions of the learned Judicial Commissioner by submitting that the appellant was not aware of non-compliance with the proviso to, s. 22 (1 ) of the Act and that he could not be penalised for any such non-compliance. We are not impressed by this submission. Section 22 contemplates the grant of exclusive privilege which amounts to a virtual monopoly for manufacturing supplying and selling at wholesale or retail country liquor or intoxicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
