9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive measures and inviting fresh applications/offers, in case no fresh offer or application comes forth, the allotments, if any, already made shall continue for the rest of the period. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sees. v) It is proposed that the licence fees for the L-1A (IMFL) for the year 2016-17 is fixed at ₹ 2.50 crores and it is proposed to have the security amount of this licence fixed at ₹ 25 lacs." According to the petitioner, the L-1A licence has been added/created just to monopolize the trade of liquor in the State of Punjab. Earlier, there was procedure in the excise policy that the person who was licensee of L-1 wholesale licence shall take the liquor directly from the manufacturing company. After adding L-1A licence, it has been specified that a person who is holder of L-1 licence will now have to take the liquor for sale from the L- 1A licensee i.e. newly created category of licence in the excise policy for the year 2016-17. It has been further claimed that the new licence has been created to monopolize the liquor trade and extend the same to the particular group of persons namely Chadha group, Malhotra group, Doda group and AD group who are at present major stake holders in the liquor business in the State of Punjab and are instrumental in influencing the excise department for creation of new category i.e. L-1A licence for their own economic interest. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit by Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab dated 5.4.2016 has also been filed justifying the addition of L-1A licence in the excise policy for the year 2016-17. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The controversy in these petitions relates to the following contentions:- a) Whether citizen has any fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as beverage? b) Whether the State can discriminate between the citizens where the trade or business in the potable liquor is permitted by the State and the scope of judicial review in the matter of liquor trade? c) Whether the newly added Clause 2.14 in the Excise Policy for the year 2016-17 by the State Government creating L-1A category of licence is legally valid, fair and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness? 8. The marathon submissions made with vehemence by learned counsel for both the parties requires issue (c) to be sub-categorized as under:- (i) Whether the action of the respondents in creating Licence L-1A category in the Excise Policy for the year 2016-17 is legal and valid as the policy was issued on 13.3.2016 whereas Punjab Liquor Excise Rules, 1956 were amended incorporating Lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merican Jurisprudence", Volume 30 it is stated that while engaging in liquor traffic is not inherently lawful,. nevertheless it is a privilege and not a right, subject to governmental control. (page 538). This power of control is' an incident of the society's right to self-protection and it rests upon the right of the State to care for the health, morals and welfare of the people. Liquor traffic is a source of pauperism and crime. (pp. 539, 540, 541)." 11. Subsequently, another Constitution Bench in Khoday Distilleries Limited and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (1995) 1 SCC 574 delving into the issue, whether the citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor, upon referring to a large number of decisions, answered the issue in the negative and very succinctly summarized the legal position as under:- "60.We may now summarize the law on the subject as culled from the aforesaid decisions. (a) The rights protected by Article 19(1) are not absolute but qualified. The qualifications are stated in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. The fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) to (g) are, therefore, to be read along with the said qualificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impose limitations and restrictions on the trade or business in potable liquor as a beverage which restrictions are in nature different from those imposed on the trade or business in legitimate activities and goods and articles which are res commercium. The restrictions and limitations on the trade or business in potable liquor can again be both. under Article 19(6) or otherwise. The restrictions and limitations can extend to the State carrying on the trade or business itself to the exclusion of and elimination of others and/or to preserving to itself the right to. sell licences to do trade or business in the same, to others. (g) When the State permits trade or business in the potable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade or business subject to the limitations, if any, and the State cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. (h) The State can adopt any mode of selling the licences for trade or business with a view to maximise its revenue so long as the method adopted is not discriminatory. (i) The State can carry on trade or business in potable liquor notwithstanding that it is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for grant of licence in Form L-1, whether it was violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Considering the law on the issue, it was again expressed that there is no fundamental right to trade in intoxicants like liquor and the plea of the petitioner therein to the contrary was emphatically repelled with the following observations:- "The contention that a citizen of this country has a fundamental right to trade in intoxicating liquors refuses to die in spite of the recent Constitution Bench decision in Khoday Distilleries, [1995] 1 SCC 574. It is raised before us again. In Khoday Distilleries, this Court reviewed the entire case-law on the subject and concluded that a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in intoxicating liquors and that trade or business in such liquor can be completely prohibited. It held that because of its vicious and pernicious nature, dealing in intoxicating liquors is considered to be res extra commercium (outside commerce).Article 47 of the Constitution, it pointed out, requires the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh High Court in Naresh Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (CWP No.1636 of 2010 decided on 26th March 2010) was regarding whether liquor policy which related to renewal of licence was a valid policy and whether such policy created any monopoly in favour of all such persons who were ready and willing to give 20% extra on the existing licence fee. Opining on the nature of right to deal in business of liquor, the Full bench had elaborately considered it and expressed as under:- "25. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Har Shankar and Others etc. v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and others, etc., AIR 1975 SC 1121 while dealing with right to deal in the business of intoxicants approved the ratio of earlier decisions, namely, decision of the Constitution Bench in the State of Bombay vs. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318 and Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commr. And the Chief Commr. , Ajmer, AIR 1954 SC 220, State of Assam v. A. N. Kidwai AIR 1957 SC 414, Nagendra Nath Vora and another vs. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398, Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura, AIR 1972 SC 1863, State of Bombay vs. R.M.D.Chamarbaug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Article 19(1)(a) to (g) of the Constitution of India have certain restrictions as enumerated in clauses (2) to (6) of the said Article 19. Further, the State is empowered to restrict or prohibit trades which are injurious to health and welfare of the public. Thus, citizens cannot claim fundamental right to trade or carry on business in such activities and potable liquor is one which falls in this category. Thus, trade of liquor can be completely prohibited by the State. 15. Adverting to the next issue, it has overlapping traits with the first issue. It shall not detain us longer as it had been subject matter of deliberations in various decisions of different courts. The Apex Court in State of M.P. and others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others, (1986) 4 SCC 566 opined that though a citizen has no fundamental right to carry on trade or business of liquor but where the State decides to grant the right or privilege to carry on this trade, in such a situation, the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. The relevant observations are quoted as under:- "The State under its regulatory power has the power to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct arbitrarily or at will. While applying Article 14 of the Constitution in such a case, the court will be slow to interfere with the policy for grant of liquor or award of contracts unless the same was arbitrary, illegal or mala fide. In a given case, the State could review its policy in public interest. It is well settled that if decision making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality or irrationality, this court could strike down the same as well as consequential actions, in exercise of its power of judicial review. 17. In Har Shankar and others etc. v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and others etc, AIR 1975 SC 1121, it was observed:- "53.In our opinion, the true position governing dealings in intoxicants is as stated and reflected in the Constitution bench decisions of this Court in Balsara's case 1951 SCR 682 = (AIR 1951 SC 318); Cooverjee's case 1954 SCR 873 = (AIR 1954 SC 220); Kidwai's case 1957 SCR 295 = (AIR 1957 SC 414); Nagendra Nath's case 1958 SCR 1240 = (AIR 1958 SC 398); Amar Chakraborty's case (1973) 1 SCR 533 = (AIR 1972 SC 1863) and the RM DC case 1957 SCR 874 = (AIR 1957 SC 699) as interpreted in Hari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State Government in determining its policy of regulating, manufacture and trade in liquor. Moreover, the grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter of economic policy where the court would hesitate to intervene and strike down what the State Government had done, unless it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide. We had occasion to consider the scope of interference by the Court under Article 14 while dealing with laws relating to economic activities in R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCR 947 : (AIR 1981 SC 2138). We pointed out in that case that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. We observed that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has to be allowed to the legislature. We q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. It is against the background of these observations and keeping them in mind that we must now proceed to deal with the contention of the petitioners based on Article 14 of the Constitution." The above principles were reiterated in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. And others v. State of Karnataka and others, (1995) 1 SCC 574, wherein para 62, it was observed:- "62. We, therefore, hold that a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as beverage. The State can prohibit completely the trade or business in potable liquor since liquor as beverage is res extra commercium. The State may also create a monopoly in itself for trade or business in such liquor. The State can further place restrictions and limitations on such trade or business which may be in nature different from those on trade or business in articles res commercium. The view taken by this court in K.K.Narula case as well as in the second Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Case is not contrary to the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was existing on the date of application as per previous policy. A prior decision would not bind the Government for all times to come. When the Government is satisfied that change in the policy was necessary in the public interest, it would be entitled to revise the policy and lay down new policy. The court, therefore, would prefer to allow free play to be Government to evolve fiscal policy in the public interest and to act upon the same. Equally, the Government is left free to determine priorities in the matters of allocations or allotments or utilisation of its finances in the public interest. It is equally entitled, therefore, to issue or withdraw or modify the export or import policy in accordance with the scheme evolved. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners have no vested or accrued right for the issuance of permits on the MEE or NQE, nor is the Government bound by its previous policy. It would be open to the Government to evolve the new schemes and the petitioners would get their legitimate expectations accomplished in accordance with either of the two schemes subject to their satisfying the conditions required in the scheme. The High Court, therefore, was right in its co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293 : (1989) 2 SCR 751 : AIR 1989 SC 1642." 17. As recorded by Division Bench of this Court in Ram Chander's case (supra), the issue is answered in the affirmative. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be clearly attracted wherever State decides to grant contracts or licences in the trade and business of liquor to be carried on by the citizens and the action of the Government would be amenable to judicial review wherein it violates any statutory provision or rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 18. Examining the third issue, necessarily it would be expedient to advert to the relevant statutory provisions, rules framed thereunder and the Excise Policy for the year 2016-17. By Section 58 of the Act, the State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act whereas Section 59 of the Act empowers the Financial Commissioner to make rules by notification in respect of the subject covered therein. Section 59 of the Act is in following terms:- "59. Powers of Financial Commissioner to make rules.- The Financial Commissioner may, by notification, makes rules. (a) regulating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red; (h) providing for the destruction or other disposal of any intoxicant deemed to be unfit for use ; (i) regulating the disposal of confiscated articles ; (j) prescribing the amount of security to be deposited by holders of leases, licenses, permits or passes for the performance of the conditions of the same." 19. By Clause (d) of Section 59 of the Act, the Financial Commissioner is authorized to make rules "prescribing the scale of fees or the manner of fixing the fees payable in respect of any licence, permit or pass etc. in respect of the storing of any intoxicant." In pursuance of Section 59(d) of the Act, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner on whom the powers of the Financial Commissioner are conferred by the State Government, framed the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 (for brevity, the Rules"). Rule 1 thereof contains a Table where the classes of licences, their mode of grant and the authorities who can grant and renew the licences are specified. Part I of the table deals with Foreign Liquor and refers to various categories of liquor licences. Rule 24 of the Rules specifies the kind of fees payable in respect of licences which are issued under the Rules whereas und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s shall also be available in various bank branches authorized by the department for receipt of application forms. The applicant can submit his application for any Licensing Unit/Group/Zone of any district in any of the bank branches. The cost of application forms shall be as under:- (i) A licensing unit or group of units of License fee upto ₹ 2 crore ₹ 15,000/- (ii) A zone/group of units of License fee upto ₹ 4 crore ₹ 25,000/- (iii) A zone/group of units of License fee upto ₹ 6 crore ₹ 35,000/- (iv) A zone/group of units of License fee upto ₹ 8 crore ₹ 45,000/- (v) A zone/group of units of License fee upto ₹ 10 crore ₹ 55,000/- (vi) A zone/group of units of L/fee above ₹ 10 crore ₹ 70,000/- The fee shall not be refundable or adjustable. If the first or any subsequent allotment procedure is cancelled by the department or, any application form is rejected by the department being invalid and not put to draw of lots, then the amount of application fee shall be refunded to the concerned applicant, after deducting two thousand rupees per application as processing fee. Out of the total proceeds fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport foreign liquor (BIO brands) from custom bond both within and outside the State; (a) Only L-1A (IMFL) license holder can apply for this license. (iii) L-1A (Beer) Whole sale vend of Beer, to the L-1 licensee only authorized to purchase Beer from breweries both within and outside the State; (a) The conditions applicable to license L-1A (IMFL) shall apply to this license." 20. In the year 2011, the State Government made amendment in the Punjab Liquor License Rules, 1956, whereby, for the first time, L-1A category of Licence was notified. The relevant portion of the Rules as notified in 2011 is as under:- "L-1A. A wholesale vend of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Imported Foreign Liquor including BIO Brands, Beer, Ready to drink beverages and Wine to the trade only authorized to purchase and import liquor from any other State and from any foreign country." As per the aforesaid amendment, L-1A licencee was added who could purchase the liquor manufactured outside the State of Punjab and outside the country. 21. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 59 of the Act, the Excise Commissioner, Punjab exercising the power of the Financial Commissioner issued Punjab Liquor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trictions and limitations can extend to the State carrying on the trade or business itself to the exclusion and elimination of others and/or to preserving to itself the right to sell licences to do trade or business in the same, to others. 24. The scope of interference in policy matters in exercise of power of judicial review was considered by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Naresh Gupta's case (supra), where after referring to catena of judgments of the Apex Court, the principles of law were summarized. The relevant observations of the Bench are quoted below:- "37. Scope of interference in policy matters in exercise of powers of judicial review is well settled by a catena of decisions. In T.N. Education Deptt., Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Assn. v. State of T.N., (1980) 3 SCC 97 the Supreme Court while noticing the jurisdictional limitation to analyse and to find fault with the policy held that the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot sit in judgment over the policy matters except on limited grounds., namely, whether the policy is arbitrary, mala fide, unreasonable or irrational. Each State is empowered to formulate its own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking, it was held that in a case of policy decision pertaining to economic matters, the Court should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry and investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion. In Federation of the Railway Officers' Association and Others v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 298, it was once again reiterated by the Supreme Court that unless policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws, or arbitrary or irrational the Court will not interfere with such matter. 40. In a recent decision of Supreme Court rendered in case of Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India and Others, (2009) 7 SCC 561, the Supreme Court once again reiterated that in the matters of economic policy the scope of judicial review is very limited and the Court will not interfere with economic policy of the State unless the same is shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution. The court cannot examine the relative merits of different economic policies and cannot strike down a policy merely on the ground that another policy would have been fairer and better. Wisdom and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (viii) Normally there is a presumption that governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness and the burden is a heavy one which has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by bringing proper and adequate material on record." 25. The settled legal position emerging from various decisions of the Apex Court relating to challenge to any policy framed for selling liquor on the ground of Article 14 was reiterated by the Full bench in the following words:- "42. Let us now examine the challenge to the new policy on the ground that same is discriminatory or arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In order to deal with question of infringement of constitutional guarantee contained in Article 14 it would be expedient to notice case law on the subject. 43. In Cooverjee B. Bharucha (supra) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Ajmer Excise Regulations repelled the challenge on the ground of violation of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India and held as under: "Elimination and exclusion from bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r can there be any infringement of Article 14, if the Government tries to get the best available price for its valuable rights." 46. In view of the Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in Cooverjee B. Bharucha (supra) and in Amar Chandra Chakraborty (supra) following principles emerge: (i) In liquor business, elimination and exclusion from business is inherent, and the principles applicable to other business or trades cannot be applied to trade or business in liquor. Properly speaking there can be a monopoly only when a trade which could be carried on by all persons is entrusted by law to one or all persons to the exclusion of general public. Such however, is not the case with the business of liquor. (ii) Trade or business in liquor has from its inherent nature been treated by State or society as a special category and must be treated a class by itself and cannot be placed on same pedestal as other trades while considering the applicability of Article 14. (iii) Where the State Government frames a policy with the object to secure or ensure maximum revenue for parting with its privilege to deal in liquor, action of the State Government cannot be assailed on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase IMFL (except Beer) wine, RTD from the State or the manufacturing companies situated outside the State and will sell it to only L-1 licensees. v) It is proposed that the licence fees for the L-1A (IMFL) for the year 2016-17 is fixed at ₹ 2.50 crores and it is proposed to have the security amount of this licence fixed at ₹ 25 lacs." 28. The grievance of the petitioners is relating to sub clause (ii) as noticed above whereby any manufacturing company has been authorized to issue the authority/consent letter to one person/company/firm/organization for the issuance of license L-1A by the competent authority. According to the petitioners, sub clause (ii) of Clause 2.14 of the Excise Policy for the year 2016-17 prescribes that the manufacturing company cannot issue the consent letter to more than one person/company/firm/organization, but in the entire policy, no criteria or parameters have been laid down for the manufacturers for issuing the consent letter. Even no parameters or criteria have been laid down for cancellation of the consent/authority letter issued by the manufacturing unit and, therefore, ultra vires. 29. It is trite law that whenever a contract is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... den of the State to ensure that a nondiscriminatory method is adopted for distribution and alienation, which would necessarily result in protection of national/public interest. 96. In our view, a duly publicised auction conducted fairly and impartially is perhaps the best method for discharging this burden and the methods like firstcome- first-served when used for alienation of natural resources/public property are likely to be misused by unscrupulous people who are only interested in garnering maximum financial benefit and have no respect for the constitutional ethos and values. In other words, while transferring or alienating the natural resources, the State is duty-bound to adopt the method of auction by giving wide publicity so that all eligible persons can participate in the process." 30. Further, in Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1, following its earlier decision in Union of India (UOI) and another vs. International Trading Co. and another, (2003) 5 SCC 437, the Apex Court observed as under:- 36. We find merit in this civil appeal. Standards applied by courts in judicial review must be justified by constitutional princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f "reasonableness", then such an act or decision would be unconstitutional. 37. In Union of India v. International Trading Co. [(2003) 5 SCC 437] the Division Bench of this Court speaking through Pasayat, J. had held: (SCC p. 445, paras 14-15) "14. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. 15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blic property, the invocation of first-come-firstserved policy has inherently dangerous implications. Any person who has access to the power corridor at the highest or the lowest level may be able to obtain information from the Government files or the files of the agency/instrumentality of the State that a particular public property or asset is likely to be disposed of or a contract is likely to be awarded or a licence or permission is likely to be given, he would immediately make an application and would become entitled to stand first in the queue at the cost of all others who may have a better claim. 95. This Court has repeatedly held that wherever a contract is to be awarded or a licence is to be given, the public authority must adopt a transparent and fair method for making selections so that all eligible persons get a fair opportunity of competition. To put it differently, the State and its agencies/instrumentalities must always adopt a rational method for disposal of public property and no attempt should be made to scuttle the claim of worthy applicants. When it comes to alienation of scarce natural resources like spectrum etc., it is the burden of the State to ensure that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc. All these principles are inherent in the fundamental conception of Article 14. This is the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. xx xx xx 129. Hence, it is manifest that there is no constitutional mandate in favour of auction under Article 14. The Government has repeatedly deviated from the course of auction and this Court has repeatedly upheld such actions. The judiciary tests such deviations on the limited scope of arbitrariness and fairness under Article 14 and its role is limited to that extent. Essentially, whenever the object of policy is anything but revenue maximisation, the executive is seen to adopt methods other than auction. 130. A fortiori, besides legal logic, mandatory auction may be contrary to economic logic as well. Different resources may require different treatment. Very often, exploration and exploitation contracts are bundled together due to the requirement of heavy capital in the discovery of natural resources. A concern would risk undertaking such exploration and incur heavy costs only if it was assured utilisation of the resource discovered: a prudent business venture would not like to incur the high costs involved in exploration a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od for the distillery or the competent authority to be adopted for issuing authority/consent letter to one person/company/firm/organization only. It does not satisfy the requirement of being transparent, objective and very importantly gives "Level Playing Field" to all applicants. The procedure does not eliminate the vices of unfairness, unreasonableness, discrimination, non-transparency, favouritism or nepotism in the award of authority/consent letter to an applicant. Thus, sub clause (ii) to that extent would not satisfy the mandate of reasonableness as enshrined under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 33. In all fairness, we proceed to deal with two ancillary points raised by learned Advocate General. Firstly, the locus standi of the petitioners and maintainability of the petitions was questioned on the ground that the petitioners had never approached any distillery or the manufacturer for the grant of consent/authority letter as envisaged under sub clause (ii) of clause 2.14 of the Excise Policy 2016-17. Next, it was urged that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground that necessary parties who had been awarded L-1A licence in pursuance t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant of impleadment of the licencees, if any, of L-1A category in the writ petition. 36. Keeping in view the consideration of revenue of the State and the subsequent events, we mould the relief as under:- (i) The respondent is empowered to incorporate sub clause (ii) of clause 2.14 in the Excise Policy 2016-17 but the same is held to be invalid and inoperative to the extent it does not prescribe the manner and the method of its issuance by the manufacturers or the distilleries. It shall be open to the respondent-authorities to make appropriate amendment and prescribe necessary guidelines to the manufacturers/distilleries for issuing consent/authority letter to eligible applicants either by draw of lots, auction or any other mode providing equal opportunities in a transparent and objective manner. It shall, however, be open for the respondents to retain such right with the concerned authority, if so required. (ii) If after taking corrective measures and inviting fresh applications/offers, in case no fresh offer or application comes forth, the allotments, if any, already made shall continue for the rest of the period. 37. The writ petitions are disposed of in the manner indicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
