LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Foreign Liquor (Compounding,Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1975 (for short “1975 Rules”) read with Section 14 of the Abkari Act (for short “the Act”). - whether the High Court can issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the State to part with its exclusive privilege, in the matter of granting licence for establishing distilleries under the Foreign Liquor (Compounding, Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1975 (for short “1975 Rules”) read with Section 14 of the Abkari Act (for short “the Act”). = The Respondent, in our view, could lay a claim only if it establishes that a preferential treatment has been meted out to M/s Amrut Distilleries, Bangalore and M/s. Empee Distilleries, Madras while granting licences for establishing the respective distillery units in the Palakkad District on the ground of discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondent has never challenged the distillery licences granted to them, but only prayed for another licence for it as well which, in our view, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Citizens cannot have a fundamental right to trade or carry on business in the properties or rights belonging to the State nor can there be any infringement of Article 14, if the State prefers other applicants for the grant of licence, during the pendency of some other applications, unless an applicant establishes a better claim over others.= learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have overlooked those vital factors while issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Government/Commissioner to grant distillery licence to the respondent for setting up of a new distillery in the Palakkad District, thinking that the impugned order is nothing but old wine in new bottle. We are informed, after 1998, not even a single licence has been granted by the State Government/Commissioner for establishing distillery units anywhere in the State. That being the factual and legal position, we are of the view that the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the issuance of a distillery licence to the respondent. 35. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Ordered accordingly.Page 34 34 However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.


Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9098 of 2009]
State of Kerala and Others .. Appellants
Versus
Kandath Distilleries  .. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the question
whether
the High Court can issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India,  directing  the  State  to  part  with  itsPage 2 exclusive  privilege,  in  the  matter  of  granting  licence  for establishing distilleries under the Foreign Liquor (Compounding,Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1975 (for short “1975 Rules”) read with Section 14 of the Abkari Act (for short “the Act”).
3. M/s Kandath Distilleries, respondent herein, claimed to have
submitted  an  application  dated  12.1.1987  before  the
Commissioner of Excise for a licence to establish a compounding,
blending and bottling unit in the Palakkad District.  Few others
had  also  filed  similar  applications  for  licence  for  setting  up
distillery units in the State of Kerala.  All of them were directed to
first obtain the approval of the Government of India for the setting
up of new blending and bottling units and, thereafter, to approach
the State Government.  This Court, however, vide its judgment
dated  29.1.1997  in  Writ  Petition  No.  322  of  1996  (Bihar
Distillery  and  Another  v.  Union  of  India  and  Others) took
the  view  that  the  power  to  permit  the  establishment  of  any
industry engaged in the manufacture of portable liquors, including
Indian  Made  Foreign  Liquors  (IMFLs),  beer,  country  liquor  and
other intoxicating drinks is exclusively vested in the respectivePage 3
3
State Governments.  Further, it was also held that the power to
prohibit  and/or  regulate  the  manufacture,  production,  sale,
transport of consumption of such intoxicating liquors is equally
that of the States.
4. We  notice,  during  the  year  1998  and  prior  to  that,  the
Commissioner of Excise and the State Government had received
large number of applications for setting up of distillery units in
various parts of the State.  The Commissioner of Excise or the
State  could  not  have  entertained  all  those  applications  and
granted  the  licences  for  the  setting  up  of  large  number  of
distillery units in the State.  The State Government, however,
entertained  four  applications  favourably  and  accorded  its
approval under Section 14 of the Act. The State Government, vide
GO  (Rt.)  No.  291/98/TD  dated  20.5.1998,  examined  the
application  submitted  by  M/s  Amrut  Distilleries  in  detail  and
granted approval for issuing a licence by the Excise Commissioner
for the establishment of a distillery unit for the manufacture of
IMFLs  at  Kanjkode  village  in  the  Palakkad  District.  The
Government also, vide its order dated 6.8.1998, examined thePage 4
4
application  of  M/s  Empee  Distilleries,  Madras,  and  accorded
approval for the grant of licence by the Excise Commissioner for
establishing a distillery unit at Kanjkode village in the Palakad
District.    The  application  submitted  by  M/s  K.  S.  Distilleries,
Kannur  was  also  considered  by  the  State  Government  and
granted permission to the Excise Commissioner to issue a licence
for a distillery unit to be established at Kannur, vide order dated
18.8.1998.  The application of M/s Elite Group of Companies was
also  favourably  considered  by  the  Government  and  accorded
permission to the Excise Commissioner for issuing the necessary
licence for establishing a distillery unit at Trichur.  
5. M/s Kandath Distilleries (respondent) having noticed that its
application submitted in the year 1987 for setting up the unit in
the Palakkad District was not considered, filed a Revision Petition
before  the  Minister  for  Excise  on  22.11.1998  to  consider  its
application  as  well  for  the  grant  of  licence  for  establishing  a
distillery unit in the Palakkad district, though it had not raised any
dispute with regard to the grant of other two distillery licences for
setting up the units in the Palakkad District.Page 5
5
6. We notice that the Excise Commissioner/State Government
had  received,  during  the  year  1998  and  prior  to  that,  large
number of applications for licences for establishing distillery units
in  various  districts  in  the  State  of  Kerala.   The  Government,
therefore, constituted a Scrutiny/Selection Committee to shortlist
the applications received for setting up of IMFL Units, as per G.O.
(Rt.) No. 157/99/TD dated 3.3.1999.   The Government considered
the recommendations of the Committee in detail and, vide G.O.
(Rt.)/689/99/TD dated 29.9.1999, took a policy decision not to
grant any more licences for setting up the distillery units in any
part of the State.  The order was communicated to the respondent
by  the  Joint  Excise  Commissioner  vide  his  letter  dated
11.11.1999.
7. Respondent then preferred O.P. No. 7727 of 2000 before the
High  Court  to  quash  the  above  mentioned  Government  order
dated 11.11.1999 contending that its application also should have
been considered along with the applications submitted by M/s
Amrut Distilleries, Bangalore, M/s. Empee Distilleries, Madras, M/s.Page 6
6
K.  S.  Distillery,  Kannur  and  M/s.  Elite  Group  of  Companies,
Thrissur,  in  the  year  1998.   Respondent,  however,  did  not
challenge the licences granted for establishing the units in the
Palakkad District, the very same district where it had applied for a
licence.   Learned  single  Judge  quashed  the  letter  dated
11.11.1999 issued by the Joint Excise Commissioner and directed
the State Government to consider the application submitted by
the respondent in the light of the conditions prevailing in the year
1998 vide his judgment dated 23.6.2004.
8. The  Excise  Commissioner  heard  the  respondent’s
representative on 18.10.2004 and, after obtaining the views of
the State Government, rejected the application based on G.O.
(Rt.)  No.  689/99/TD  dated  29.9.1999.    Aggrieved  by  the
communication  received  from  the  Excise  Commissioner,  the
respondent filed a Representation on 20.2.2005 before the State
Government,  which  was  rejected  by  the  Government  vide  its
communication No. 4493/G3/2005/TD dated 1.9.2005.Page 7
7
9. Respondent then challenged the above mentioned orders by
filing a Writ Petition No. 29092 of 2005.  Learned single Judge vide
his  judgment  dated  25.1.2006  quashed  the  above  mentioned
orders and passed the following order:
“So, when this Court directed the Government to
consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 14 of
the Abkari Act, with reference to the conditions obtained
in 1998, the Government decided the matter on the basis
of the G.O. issued in 1999.  So, the above quoted decision
of the Government under Section 14 is unsustainable.  It
is declared so.  Since Ext.P12 is passed, based on the
above quoted communication, it is quashed.  Though the
petitioner raised several contentions in Ext.P13 appeal,
none of them was considered in Ext.P14.  Accordingly,
Ext.P14 is also quashed.   The Government is directed to
reconsider the matter concerning grant of sanction under
Section 14 of the Abkari Act in accordance with law in the
light of the directions in Ext.P11 judgment and also the
above  observations  contained  in  this  Judgment,  within
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment.”Page 8
8
10. State Government, in pursuance to the directions given by
the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29092 of 2005, again
considered the matter and took the view that the Government has
to  make  an  “independent  assessment  of  eligibility”  of  the
applicant for the grant of licence.  Holding so, the Government
passed an order on 16.3.2006.  The operative portion of the order
reads as under:
“Whenever,  applications  for  Distillery  &
Compounding (Blending  & Bottling)  units are received,
they  are  processed  separately.   The  decision  taken  in
each  application  may  be  based  on  the  facts  &  the
circumstances akin to the individual application and may
not be a common decision.  Licenses were given on the
applications  of  M/s  Amrut   Distillery,  Palakkad,  Empee
Distillery, Palakkad, Elite Distillery, Trissur & KS Distilery,
Kannur during the period as alleged by the petitioner.  At
the same time applications from Kandath Distillery, S.R.
Distillery, Sree Chakra Distillery, Rajadhani Distilleries etc.
were rejected.  Government cannot grant the privilege to
all those who had applied for such licence, for a host of
reasons.   Restrictions  have  to  be  imposed,  which  is
permissible under the Constitution.  The Government has
with  effect  from  29/9/99  issued  Government  OrderPage 9
9
deciding  not  to  grant  fresh  licenses  for  Distillery  and
Compounding (Blending & bolting) unit.  The granting of
licence  for  the  Distillery  &  Compounding  (blending  &
bottling) units is a prerogative of the Government and not
the  right  of  the  petitioner.   The  directions  and  the
communications from the offices to the petitioner are only
the statutory requirements for processing the application
and do not cast any right or claim on the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, Government finds no
reasons to reconsider the request of the petitioner under
section 14 of the Abkari Act.  Request of the petitioner is
settled accordingly, keeping in abeyance of the judgment
of the Hon’ble High Court read 5
th
 paper.
The Excise Commissioner will pass fresh orders on
Ext.P1  within  the  time limit prescribed by the Hon’ble
High Court.”
11. Respondent, noticing that the Government had not followed
the directions given by the High Court while passing the order on
16.3.2006, filed Contempt Case (C) No. 521 of 2006 before the
High Court.  Learned single Judge of the High Court felt that the
State Government should have considered, the claim for licence,
in the light of the conditions, which existed in the year 1998 andPage 10
10
could  have  granted  permission  or  rejected  it,  but  referred  to
irrelevant  matters.     Learned  single  Judge  felt  that  the
Government had  prima facie committed contempt of court by
ignoring the directions contained in its earlier judgment in O.P. No.
29092 of 2005 and passed an order on 29.6.2006, placing the
matter before the Division Bench of the High Court.
12. The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  directed  personal
appearance of the Secretary to the Government who appeared
before the Court on 9.8.2006 and offered unconditional apology
and  submitted  that  the  order  dated  16.3.2006  would  be
withdrawn and fresh orders would be passed, in conformity with
the judgment in O.P. No. 29092 of 2005.   The contempt case was
accordingly closed on 12.9.2006.
13. The  Government,  later,  passed  a  detailed  order  dated
11.10.2006.  The operative portion of the same reads as follows:Page 11
11
“Government has examined the matter in detail
with  all  available  records  and  filed  in  the  light  of
directions from the High Court of Kerala and it is found
that partnership came into existence only on 10.4.91 as
per clause no. 3 of the partnership deed.  Therefore, the
application  dated  12.11.87  cannot  be  treated  as  an
application submitted by the partnership firm. Further,
the  alleged  application  dated  12.11.87  was  already
disposed of by the Board of Revenue by letter No. XC3-
32739/93/L.Dis dated 28.6.1994.  thereafter, it is stated
that the petitioner made an application on 21.11.1998
requesting to reconsider the application alleged to have
been submitted by them on 12.1.1987.  It is contended
that in the year 1998, four licenses were granted on
20.5.1998,  06.08.1998  and  20.09.1998  respectively.
From the files it is seen that the above licences were
granted on applications which were submitted during
1995, 1996 and 1997 respectively.
From 3.2.1998 to 21.11.1998 Government received
52 applications for establishing compounding, blending
and bottling units of Indian made foreign liquor. The
Excise Commissioner as per letter No. XC3-15555/98
dated  25.11.1998  reported  that  there  was  an
unprecedented flow of application and the Government
constituted a scrutiny committee as per GO (Rt) No.Page 12
12
157/99/TD dated 3.3.1999 to shortlist the application.
As  on  21.11.1998  the  date  on  which  the  petitioner
made  the  application  for  compounding blending and
bottling licence there were other 52 applications and
Government  have  not  considered  any  one  of  them.
Moreover, the application put in by the partnership firm
byname M/s. Kandath Distilleries on 12.1.1987 cannot
be treated as an application put in by the firm based on
a  partnership  deed  which  came  into  existence  on
10.4.1991 as per Clause 3 of the Partnership Deed.
In the above circumstances the application put in
by  M/s  Kandath  Distilleries  on  21.11.1998  does  not
merit consideration for approval by Government based
on the factual conditions available as on 21.11.1998.”
14. M/s  Kandath  Distilleries  then  challenged  the  above
mentioned order by filing Writ Petition No. 2708 of 2007.  Learned
single  Judge  took  the  view  that  no  reason  other  than  the
constitution of the firm and the date of its effect, was noticed in
the impugned order dated 11.10.2006 for refusing the licence and
that there was no  other  ground found by the Government to
refuse the licence.  Consequently, learned single Judge quashedPage 13
13
the Government order dated 11.10.2006 and directed the State
Government to grant licence applied for vide application dated
12.1.1987.
15. The State Government, aggrieved by the said judgment, filed
a Writ Appeal No. 716 of 2008.  The Division Bench felt that the
State Government had ingenuously made a classification to weed
out respondent to the effect that, from 21.11.1998 onwards, State
had a different policy. The Division Bench noticed that the High
Court  had  directed  the  State  Government  to  consider  its
application submitted as early as in 1987.  Further, it was also
pointed out that the State  Government had no  case  that the
respondent applicant was not suitable, nor such contention had
ever been taken in the previous litigations.  Further, it was also
held by the Division Bench that similarly situated persons had
already been granted licences long back.  In such circumstances,
the  Division  Bench  held  that  there  was  no  illegality  in  the
directions given  by  the  learned single  Judge giving a positive
direction to grant the licence, which was necessary to uphold thePage 14
14
majesty of rule of law.  The appeal filed by the State Government
was accordingly dismissed.  Aggrieved by  the  same,  the  State
Government has come up with appeal.
16. Shri C. S. Rajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
State,  submitted that the learned single Judge as well as the
Division Bench of the High Court has committed a grave error
while  exercising  their  jurisdictions  under  Article  226  of  the
Constitution  of  India  in  giving  a  positive  direction  to  grant  a
distillery  licence  to  the  respondent.   Learned  senior  counsel
submitted that a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or
business in liquor and that the matter relating to grant of licence
for  dealing  in  liquor  or  starting  distillery  unit  is  within  the
exclusive domain of the State.
Learned senior counsel submitted that if the State has the right to
adopt a policy decision and, indisputably, it has the right to vary,
amend or rescind the same.   Further, it was also submitted that
the  application  submitted  by  the  respondent  was  a  defective
application and, therefore, the Government was justified in notPage 15
15
entertaining that application.  Learned senior counsel submitted
that cogent reasons have been stated by the Government vide its
order dated 11.10.2006 rejecting the application submitted by the
respondent and the High Court was not right in issuing a Writ of
Mandamus directing the State Government to grant the licence
applied for.
17. Shri Giri, learned senior counsel and Shri George Ponthottam,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent, traced the entire
history of the case starting from 1987 till the Government passed
the  order  dated  11.10.2006.   Learned  counsel  submitted  that
there was a concerted effort on  the part of the State  not to
consider the application of the respondent for licence for starting
the distillery unit in the Palakkad District.   At the same time, on
the basis of Policy which was in force in the year 1998, four
licences  were  granted  and  the  respondent  was  discriminated.
Learned counsel submitted that, on non-compliance of the various
directions given by the High Court, the High Court found that the
Secretary to Government had committed contempt and the order
dated 11.10.2006 was nothing but a repetition of earlier ordersPage 16
16
and  it  is  under  those  circumstances,  the  High  Court  gave  a
positive direction to grant distillery licence to the respondent,
which shall not be interfered with by this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution.  Learned counsel also referred the judgment
of this Court in Comptroller and Auditor-General of India and
Anr.  v.  K.S.  Jagannathan  and  Anr. (1986)  2  SCC  679  and
submitted that in order to prevent injustice, this Court can always
give  direction  to  compel  performance  of  a  discretion  by  an
authority in a proper and lawful manner.  Reference was also
made to the judgment of this Court in  Harigovind  Yadav  v.
Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and Ors (2006) 6 SCC 145 and RBF
Rig Corporation, Mumbai v. The Commissioner of Customs
(Imports),  Mumbai (2011) 3 SCC 573 and submitted that in
appropriate cases under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court
can always mould the reliefs.
18. We may, before examining the rival contentions, examine
the  scheme  of  the  Act  as  well  as  1975  Rules.   The  Act  was
enacted to consolidate and amend law relating to the import,Page 17
17
export,  transport,  manufacture,  sale  and  possession  of
intoxicating liquor and of intoxicating drugs in the State of Kerala.
Section 14 of the Act deals with the establishment and control of
distilleries, breweries, warehouses, etc, which confers power on
the Commissioner to issue a licence with the previous approval of
the  Government  to  establish  public  distilleries,  breweries  or
wineries,  or  authorize  the  establishment  of  private  distilleries,
breweries, wineries or other manufactories in which liquor may be
manufactured.  Section 14 is given below for easy reference:
“14. Establishment and control of distilleries,
breweries,  warehouses,  etc.-  The  Commissioner
may, with the previous approval of the Government,-
(a) Establish  public  distilleries,  breweries  or
wineries,  or  authorize  the  establishment  of
private distilleries, breweries, wineries or other
manufactories  in  which  liquor  may  be
manufactured  under  a  licence  granted  under
this Act.
Xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”Page 18
18
19. The State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by
Section 29 of the Act framed the 1975 Rules.  Rule 3 deals with
the application for licence, which requires a person who desires to
carry on  operations  of  compounding,  blending  and bottling  of
foreign liquor to apply in writing to the Commissioner and furnish
the necessary details as required under the Rule.  Rule 3 is given
below for easy reference:
3.  Application  for  Licence.-  Any  person  who
desires  to  carry  on  operations  of  compounding,
blending and bottling of foreign liquor shall apply in
writing to the Commissioner.  Every application for a
lilcence shall give details of the operation desires to
perform and shall be accompanied by –
(i) description and plan of the building in which
the operations are to be carried out in triplicate, drawn
on scale in tracing cloth;
(ii) statement  specifying  the  number,  size  and
descriptions of the permanent apparatus, if any, which
are proposed to be used;
(iii) details  regarding  the  maximum  quantity  in
proof litres of spirits expected to be in the store or in
the process of compounding, blending or bottling; andPage 19
19
(iv) a treasury receipt for the deposit of an earnest
money of one hundred rupees.”
Rule 4 deals with the grant and renewal of licence, which
empowers the Commissioner to issue the licence applied for.
Rule 4 reads as under:
“4.  Grant  and  renewal  of  licence.-  (1)  The
Commissioner may, if he is satisfied after making such
enquiries  as  he  may  consider necessary  that  the
applicant is a person to whom licence  may be issued,
grant to the applicant.-
(i) a compounding and blending licence in
Form  1  on  payment  of  a  fee  of
Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only); and
(ii) a bottling licence in Form 2 on payment
of a fee of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs
only).
(2) The Commissioner shall retain the original of
the description of plan and forward the duplicate to the
officer-in-charge  through  the  Assistant  Excise
Commissioner and return the triplicate to the lilcensee.
(3) The earnest money deposit shall be adjusted
towards the fees of the licence.  If the licence appliedPage 20
20
for is not granted, the earnest money deposit of Rs.100
shall be refunded to the applicant.
(4) The Commissioner may on application made
to  him  in  this  behalf  and  on  payment  of  the  fee
specified in rules renew a licence for a period of one
year at a time.”
(emphasis supplied)
Rule 5 deals with the requirements to be satisfied with regard to
building  in  which  the  compounding,  blending  and  bottling
operations are to be carried out.  Licence for compounding and
blending of foreign liquor is issued in Form No. 1 and the licence
for bottling of foreign liquor is issued in Form No. 2.
20. We  may,  before  examining  the  scope  of  the  above
mentioned provisions and the nature of jurisdiction or the powers
to be exercised by the Commissioner and the State Government,
examine the general purport of the Act in the light of Article 19(1)
(g) of the Constitution of India.
RIGHT TO CARRY ON TRADE OR BUSINESS IN LIQUORPage 21
21
21. Article 47 is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy
which is fundamental in the governance of the country and the
State has the power to completely prohibit the manufacture, sale,
possession, distribution and consumption of liquor as a beverage
because  it  is  inherently  dangerous  to  the  human  health.
Consequently, it is the privilege of the State and it is for the State
to  decide  whether  it  should  part  with  that  privilege,  which
depends upon the liquor policy of the State.  State has, therefore,
the exclusive right or privilege in respect of portable liquor.   A
citizen has, therefore, no fundamental right to trade or business in
liquor  as  a  beverage  and  the  activities,  which  are  res  extra
commercium, cannot be carried on by any citizen and the State
can prohibit completely trade or business in portable liquor and
the State can also create a monopoly in itself for the trade or
business in such liquor.  This legal position is well settled.  State
can  also  impose  restrictions  and  limitations  on  the  trade  or
business in liquor as a beverage, which restrictions are in nature
different from those imposed on trade or business in legitimate
activities  and  goods  and  articles  which  are  res  commercium.Page 22
22
Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in Vithal
Dattatraya  Kulkarni  and  Others  v.  Shamrao  Tukaram
Power  SMT  and  Others (1979) 3 SCC 212,  P.  N.  Kaushal  &
Others v. Union of India & Others (1978) 3 SCC 558, Krishna
Kumar Narula etc. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others
AIR 1967 SC 1368, Nashirwar and Others v. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others (1975) 1 SCC 29, State of A. P. & Others v.
McDowell  &  Co  and  Others (1996) 3 SCC 709 and  Khoday
Distilleries  Ltd.  &  Others  v.  State  of  Karnataka  &  Others
(1995) 1 SCC 574.
22. Legislature, in its wisdom, has given considerable amount of
freedom to the decision makers, the Commissioner and the State
Government since they are conferred with the power to deal with
an article which is inherently injurious to human health.
23. Section 14 of the Act indicates that the Commissioner can
exercise his powers to grant licence only with the approval of the
State Government because the State has the exclusive privilege
in dealing with liquor.  The powers conferred on the CommissionerPage 23
23
and the State Government under Section 14 as well as Rule 4 are
discretionary in nature, which is discernible from the permissible
language used therein.
LIQUOR POLICY:
24. Liquor  policy  of  State  is  synonymous  or  always  closely
associated with the policy of the Statute dealing with liquor or
such obnoxious subjects.    Monopoly in the trade of liquor is with
the State and it is only a privilege that a licensee has in the
matter of manufacturing and vending in liquor, so held, by this
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Nagpur Distilleries (2006) 5
SCC 112.  Courts are also not expected to express their opinion as
to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation,
any such policy should have been adopted or not.  1998 Policy
has life only in that year and if any rights have accrued to any
party, that have to be adjudicated then and there.    Writ Petition
was  moved  only  in  the  year  2000,  by  then,  policy  had  been
changed  because  1999  liquor  policy  was  total  ban,  so  also
subsequent liquor policies.   It is trite law that a Court of Law isPage 24
24
not expected to propel into “the unchartered ocean” of State’s
Policies.  State has the power to frame and reframe, change and
re-change, adjust and readjust policy, which cannot be declared
as illegal or arbitrary on the ground that the earlier policy was a
better and suited to the prevailing situations.  Situation which
exited in the year  1998 had its natural death  and cannot be
revised in the year 2013, when there is total ban.  
DISCRETION AND DUTY:
25. Discretionary power implies freedom of choice, a competent
authority may decide whether or not to act.  The legal concept of
discretion implies power to make a choice between alternative
courses of action (Discretionary Justice Davis 1969).  Statute has
conferred discretionary  power  on  the  Commissioner  and  State
Government but not discretion coupled with duty because they
are dealing with a subject matter on which State has exclusive
privilege.  Permissive language used by the Statute in Section 14
and  the  rule  making  authority  in  Rule  4  gives  the  State
Government  and  the  Commissioner,  no  mandatory  duty  orPage 25
25
obligation to grant the licence except perhaps to consider the
application, if the liquor policy permits so.  
26. Section 14 uses the expression “Commissioner may”, “with
the  approval  of  the  Government”  so  also  Rule  4  uses  the
expressions “Commissioner may”, “if he is satisfied” after making
such enquiries as  he may consider necessary “licence may be
issued”.    All those expressions used in Section 14 and Rule 4
confer discretionary powers on the Commissioner as well as the
State Government, not a discretionary power coupled with duty.
The  powers,  conferred  on  the  Commissioner  as  well  as  the
Government,  have  to  be  understood  in  the  light  of  the
Constitutional scheme bearing in mind the fact that the trade or
business which is inherently harmful can always be restricted,
curtailed  or  prohibited  by  the  State,  since  it  is  the  exclusive
privilege  of  the  State.   No  duty  is,  therefore,  cast  on  the
Commissioner to grant a licence for establishing a distillery unit
and no right is conferred on any citizen to claim it as a matter of
right.  State can always adopt a “restrictive policy”, e.g., reducing
the number of licences in a particular district or a particular area,Page 26
26
or not to grant any licence at all in a particular district, even in
cases  where  the  applicants  have  satisfied  all  the  conditions
stipulated in the rules and the policy permits granting of licences.
In other words, the satisfaction of the conditions laid  -down in
1975 Rules would not entitle an applicant as a matter of right to
claim a distillery licence which is within the exclusive privilege of
the State.
MANDAMUS – TO ISSUE LICENCE
27. Legislature  when  confers  a  discretionary  power  on  an
authority, it has to be exercised by it in its discretion, the decision
ought to be that of the authority concerned and not that of the
Court.  Court would not interfere with or probe into the merits of
the decision made by an authority in exercise of its discretion.
Court cannot impede the exercise of discretion of an authority
acting under the Statute by issuance of a Writ of Mandamus.  A
Writ of Mandamus can be issued in favour of an applicant who
establishes  a  legal  right  in  himself  and  is  issued  against  an
authority which has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/orPage 27
27
neglected to do so, but such a legal duty should emanate either in
discharge of the public duty or operation of law.  We have found
that there is no legal duty cast on the Commissioner or the State
Government exercising powers under Section 14 of the Act read
with Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules to grant the licence applied for.  The
High Court, in our view, cannot direct the State Government to
part  with  its  exclusive  privilege.   At  best,  it  can  direct
consideration of an application for licence.  If the High Court feels,
in spite of its direction, the application has not been properly
considered or arbitrarily rejected, the High Court is not powerless
to deal with such a situation that does not mean that the High
Court can bend or break the law.  Granting liquor licence is not
like granting licence to drive a cab or parking a vehicle or issuing
a municipal licence to set up a grocery or a fruit shop.  Before
issuing a writ of mandamus, the High Court should have, at the
back of its mind, the legislative scheme, its object and purpose,
the  subject  matter,  the  evil  sought  to  be  remedied,  State’s
exclusive  privilege  etc.  and  not  to  be  carried  away  by  the
idiosyncrasies or the  ipse dixit of an officer who authored thePage 28
28
order challenged.  Majesty of law is to be upheld not by bending
or breaking the law but by strengthening the law.
28. Respondent-applicant, in the instant case, in our view, has
failed to establish a legal right or to show that there is a legal
duty on the Commissioner or the Government to issue a distillery
licence.
DISCRETIONARY ORDER – ARTICLE 14
29. Discretionary power leaves the donee of the power free to
use or not to use it at his discretion.  (refer Rani Drig Raj Kuer
v. Raja Sri Amar Krishna Narain Singh AIR 1960 SC 444).  Law
is well settled that the exercise of statutory discretion must be
based  on  reasonable  grounds  and  cannot  lapse  into  the
arbitrariness or caprice anathema to the rule of law envisaged in
Article 14 of the Constitution.  It is trite law that, though, no
citizen has a legal right to claim a distillery licence as a matter of
right and the Commissioner or the State Government is entitled to
either not to entertain or reject the application, they cannot enter
into a relationship by arbitrarily choosing any person they like orPage 29
29
discriminate between persons similarly circumscribed.  The State
Government,  when  decides  to  grant  the  right  or  privilege  to
others,  of course, cannot escape of the rigor of Article 14, in the
sense that it can act arbitrarily.  In such a situation, it is for the
party who complains to establish that a discriminatory treatment
has been meted out to him as against similarly placed persons
but cannot demand a licence for establishing a distillery unit, as a
matter of right.
30. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4
SCC 566, this Court held that no one can claim as against the
State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the
State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive privilege or
right of manufacturing and selling liquor.  But, when the State
decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot
escape from the rigor of Article 14 of the Constitution, it cannot
act arbitrarily or at its sweet will.
31. We  have  noticed  that  the  application  preferred  by  M/s
Kandath Distilleries (respondent herein) in the year 1987 was forPage 30
30
establishing a distillery unit in the Palakkad District.  So also the
applications submitted by M/s Amrut Distilleries, Bangalore and
M/s.  Empee  Distilleries,  Madras  and  licences  were  granted  to
them for establishing the distillery units in the Palakkad District.
However, the respondent’s application was not considered.  The
Commissioner  or  the  State  Government  has  to  take  an
independent decision in each application based on its eligibility
and there cannot be any common decision.  As held in Nandlal
Jaiswal (supra) when the State Government is granting licence
for putting up new industry, it is not necessary that it should
advertise and invite offers for putting up such industry.  The State
Government is entitled to negotiate with those who have come up
with an offer to set up such industry.  The State Government
cannot grant the privilege to all those who have applied for such a
licence in a particular district, for a host of reasons.  The State
Government could restrict the number of distillery lincences in a
particular district by two and it can also grant a third licence in a
particular district as well, but an applicant cannot claim a licence
as a matter of right.   Page 31
31
32. The Respondent, in our view, could lay a claim only if it
establishes that a preferential treatment has been meted out to
M/s  Amrut  Distilleries,  Bangalore  and  M/s.  Empee  Distilleries,
Madras  while  granting  licences  for  establishing  the  respective
distillery  units  in  the  Palakkad  District  on  the  ground  of
discrimination  violating Article  14  of the Constitution  of India.
Respondent has never challenged the distillery licences granted
to them, but only prayed for another licence for it as well which,
in our view, cannot be claimed as a matter of right.  Citizens
cannot have a fundamental right to trade or carry on business in
the properties or rights belonging to the State nor can there be
any  infringement  of  Article  14,  if  the  State  prefers  other
applicants for the grant of licence, during the pendency of some
other applications, unless an applicant establishes a better claim
over others.
33. We  have  gone  through  the  Government  Order  dated
11.10.2006  in extenso  and we are not prepared to say that the
application of the respondent was rejected solely on the ground
Page 32
32
that the application dated 12.1.1987 could not be treated as an
application put forward by a firm based on a partnership deed,
which came into existence on 10.4.1991, as per Clause 3 of the
Partnership Deed but on various other grounds as well.  
The State
Government,  in  our  view,  has  considered  the  respondent’s
application dated 12.1.1987 with regard to the conditions that
existed in the year 1998. The Government letter dated 28.6.1994
would  indicate  that,  apart  from  the  respondent,  few  other
applications were also pending prior to the year 1994.  Over and
above,  the  State  Government  during  the  year  1998,  from
3.2.1998  to  21.11.1998,  had  received  52  applications  for
establishing compounding, blending and bottling units in IMFLs in
various parts of the State.  The Excise Commissioner vide his
letter  dated  25.11.1998  had  reported  that  there  was  an
unprecedented  flow  of  applications,  that  was  the  situation
prevailing in the year 1998, a factor which was taken note of in
not  entertaining  the  respondent’s  application,  whether  it  was
submitted on 12.1.1987 or on 22.11.1998.  We cannot, in any
Page 33
33
way, activate an out-modeled, outdated, forgotten liquor policy of
1998, in the year 2013, by a Writ of Mandamus.
34. We are, therefore, of the view that the 
learned single Judge
as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have overlooked
those vital factors while issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the
State Government/Commissioner to grant distillery licence to the
respondent  for  setting  up  of  a  new  distillery  in  the  Palakkad
District, thinking that the impugned order is nothing but old wine
in new bottle.  
We are informed, after 1998, not even a single
licence has been granted by the State Government/Commissioner
for establishing distillery units anywhere in the State.  That being
the factual and legal position, we are of the view that the learned
single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court was
not justified in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the issuance
of  a distillery licence to the respondent.   
35. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and set aside
the judgment of the learned single Judge and affirmed by the
Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court.   Ordered  accordingly.Page 34
34
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be
no order as to costs.
............................................J.
(K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
............................................J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
New Delhi,
February 22, 2013.