SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 294

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., A.N. RAY, I.D. DUA, D.G. PALEKAR AND M.H. BEG, JJ.
Amar Chandra Chakraborty, Appellant
Versus
The Collector of Excise, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals No. 1063 of 1971, D/- 3-5-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; M/s. Gobind Das and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, for Respondents.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226,47 and 136 - Bengal Excise Act, 1909 – Section 22(1),22 and 43 - Sea Customs Act, 1878 – Section 167 - Supply of country liquor - Extension of licence - Appellant was granted licence for period for running a ware-house for supply of country liquor to excise vendors in territory - Bengal Excise Act, 1909 had been extended to that territory - Appellant licence was subsequently extended for a further period of two years - Appellant applied to Excise Collector praying that he should be permitted to continue supply of country liquor for a period of five year - Collector recommended appellant case to Government for extension of his licence for a further period of only two years - Collector of Excise, Tripura, Agartala, wrote to appellant that he had been appointed by Chief Commissioner "a contractor for the supply of country liquor to the excise vendors for territory of Tripura for five years at the existing rate only being the cost of one L.P. litre of country liquor of 40 U.P. strength for sale to excise vendors" of that territory from Central Warehouse at Agartala - Whether in a particular case Rules of natural justice have been contravened must be judged – Held, cause for withdrawing appellant licence is in terms of major policy decisions taken by Tripura Government and this, in court opinion is a cause which, keeping in view purpose and objects of granting such exclusive privileges and licences, cannot be considered to be either irrelevant or collateral to that purpose and object - Appellant had, it may be recalled, secured his licence for maximum period of five years as provided by Rule 22 (4) of Tripura Excise Rules, 1962 for a nominal annual sum - Such notification would serve also to eliminate chances of favouritism, nepotism and corruption - Section 22 seems also to have its roots in these deeper considerations - Failure to give such public notice was, therefore, in court opinion, rightly considered by learned Judicial Commissioner to be fatal to grant of exclusive privilege to the appellant - Nothing convincing has been said at bar against this view - If non-compliance with proviso to Section 22 (1) is by itself fatal to grant of exclusive privilege then the impugned order is sustainable on this ground alone and Writ Petition was thus rightly dismissed - In any event, this ground, along with the others already noticed, would, in court opinion, constitute a goods cause for withdrawing the licence under Section 43 of the Act - On this view the impugned judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner does not seem to court to be open to challenge particularly under Article 136 of the Constitution – This appeal accordingly fails - Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appellant challenged withdrawal order citing lack of public notice under proviso to Section 22(1) and questioned Section 43's scope. (!) - The court held that failure to give public notice under Section 22(1) is a valid ground contributing to withdrawal under Section 43, and that the withdrawal can be based on major policy decisions. (!) - It was determined that Section 43 permits withdrawal for causes other than those specified in Section 42, provided the 15-day notice and remittance are observed. (!) (!) (!) - The authority withdrawing a license may be the Collector within the framework of Section 43, and the order can be sustained if consistent with statutory provisions and public policy considerations. (!) (!) - The impugned order’s compliance with natural justice is evaluated in light of the statutory scheme, with emphasis on timely notice and opportunity to show cause. (!) (!) - Public notice requirement under Section 22(1) is essential to prevent favoritism and ensure accountability in granting exclusive privileges. (!) - The state’s policy decision to divide licenses and move to tender-cum-auction was a valid reason for withdrawal of the appellant’s five-year license. (!) - The judgment rejectsArt. 14 and Art. 19 challenges to Section 43, upholding the reasonableness of regulations on the liquor trade given its social impact. (!) (!) - The licensee is entitled to remittance of the 15-day fee if withdrawal occurs, and any prepaid or deposits are refundable after deduction of any due amounts. (!) (!) - The appeal is dismissed, and the impugned judgment is upheld regarding the validity of withdrawal and grounds therefor. (!) (!)

What is the legality and validity of withdrawing a license under Section 43 of the Bengal Excise Act as extended to Tripura, in light of the requirements of public notice under Section 22(1) and the grounds for withdrawal under Section 42?


Judgment

DUA, J. :- This appeal is by special leave. The appellant assails the order of the Judicial Commissioner, Tripura dated June 25, 1971 dismissing his petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Collector of Excise, Tripura, dated July 5, 1970.

2. The appellant was granted licence for the period April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1966 for running a ware-house for supply of country liquor to excise vendors in the territory of Tripura. The Bengal Excise Act, 1909 (hereinafter called the Act) had been extended to that territory on August 1, 1962. The appelant s licence was subsequently extended for a further period of two years ending March 31, 1968. On November 6, 1967 the appellant applied to the Excise 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, 1968 the appellant was asked by the Collector of Excise to deposit Rs. 1,000/- as security and Rs. 2,500/- of licence fee for five years at the rate of Rs. 500/- per 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 years commencing April 1, 1968 and ending March 31, 1973. It was granted by the Excise Collector.

3. The Committee of Estimates in their Fifth Report about the working of Excise Department in the territory of Tripura in general and about the procedure adopted in giving contract to the appellant for a period of five years from 1968 to 1973 in particular made some adverse observations criticising the method of appointment by means of selection because this method, according to the report, left loopholes for corruption. As a result of this report the Lt. Governor of Tripura on July 2, 1970 inserted R. 164-A in the Tripura Excise Rules of 1962 in exercise of the power conferred by S. 86 of the Act. According to the new rule, fees for licence for the wholesale vend of country spirit were required to be fixed by tender-cum-auction. On July 6, 1970 the Excise Collector issued the following order to the appellant;

"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA

OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OF

EXCISE"

No. 810/DM/EX.5(19)/70-71 dated, Agartala the 6-7-1970.

Whereas it has been decided by the Government of Tripura that the licenses for the wholesale of country spirit shall hence forwards be granted by the method of tender-cum-auction and to different persons for different specific areas as far as practicable, instead of the present system of selection of one licensee for the whole territory of Tripura, in the interests of excise revenue.

And whereas I, Sri Omesh Saigal, Collector of Excise, Tripura consider that for the aforesaid reason the license no. 1 dated the 13th March, 1968 issued to Sri Amar Chandra Chakraborty for the wholesale vend of country spirit in the Union Territory of Tripura for the period from the 1st April, 1968 to 31st March 1973 should be withdrawn.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under S. 43 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, as extended to the Union Territory of Tripura, I remit a sum of Rs. 20.84 equal to the amount of the fees payable in respect of the said license for 15 days and hereby give the licensee 15 days notice of






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top