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

1994 Supreme(SC) 274

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.)
ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Versus
ISSAC PETER AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal Nos. 3442 of 1984, 655 of 1991, 1161-62, 1164-66, 1167-69 of 1994, 87 of 1991, 4291 of 1986, 1170-71, 1163, 1172-76, 1181, 1177-78, 1180 of 1994, 4429, 4442 of 1984, 1817 of 1992, 2796 of 1987, 4993-95, 3443-60 of 1984, 1551-54 of 1985, 4430-41, 4443-50 of 1984 and 1818 of 1992, decided on February 22, 1994
Advocates appeared :
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Santosh N. Hegde, A.S. Nambiar, V.M. Tarkunde, G. Ramaswamy, V.B. Nambiar, G.V. lyer and C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocates (K.R. Sasiprabhu, A. Jayaram, V.G. Prakashan, J.P. Verghese, Dr M.P. Raju, S.P. Sharma, Shanta Vasudevan (Smt), P.K. Manohar, R.N. Keshwani, e E.M.S. Anam, M.A. Firoz, K.V. Vishwanathan, Pratap Venugopal, K.J. John, S. Balakrishnan, N. Sudhakaran and V.J. Francis, Advocates, with them) for the appearing parties.

Advocates:
A.N.JAYARAM, A.S.NAMBIYAR, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, E.M.S.ANAM, G.RAMASVAMY, G.V.IYER, J.P.Verghese, K.J.JOHN, K.R.SASIPRABHU, K.V.VISHWANATHAN, M.A.Firoz, M.P.RAJU, N.SUDHAKARAN, P.K.MANOHARAN, Pratap venugopal, R.N.KESHWANI, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.P.SHARMA, SANTOSH HEGDE, SHANTA VASUDEVAN, V.B.NAMBIAR, V.G.PRAGASAM, V.J.Francis, V.M.TARKUNDE, V.R.REDDY

Headnote:

Kerala Abkari Act - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Contract Act - Sections 55, 18-A , 15 , 24 17, 18, and 56 - Entitled to any rebate/remission - Public auction - State and some by licensees/contractors - Matters arise under Kerala Abkari Act - All of them pertain to excise year question is whether there was a failure on part of State in supplying arrack undertaken by it to supply and whether the licensees are entitled to any rebate/remission in amounts payable by them under contracts, on account of such failure, if any - Earliest decision is in OP No. Commissioner1 - It was a writ petition filed by the licensee - Several other matters were allowed following said decision against which the State has filed appeals - Another Division Bench of the High Court, took a contrary view in AS No. and batch disposed – Held, Whether they make profit or incur loss is no concern of the State it is entitled to its money under contract - It is not as if licensees are going to pay more to the State in case make substantial profits – Court reiterate said hereinabove is in context of contracts entered into between State and its citizens pursuant to public auction, floating of tenders or by negotiation - It is not necessary to say more this for purpose of these cases - What would be position in case of contracts entered into otherwise than by public auction, floating of tenders or negotiation – Court need not express any opinion herein - All that was done was to advise IOC to take appellant into confidence before putting an end to his long-enjoyed right - Observations in judgment are confined to particular facts of case - It is significant to note it was not a case where the rights of the parties were governed by a contract - Appeals preferred by the State are allowed

Judgment

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Leave granted in the SLPs.

2. In this batch of appeals, some are preferred by the State and some by the licensees/contractors. The matters arise under the Kerala Abkari Act. All of them pertain to the excise year 1981-82. The question is whether there was a failure on the part of the State in supplying the arrack undertaken by it to supply and whether the licensees are entitled to any rebate/remission in the amounts payable by them under the contracts, on account of such failure, if any. The earliest decision is in OP No. 2325 of the 1981-1, (Issac Peter v. Asstt. Excise Commissioner1). It was a writ petition filed by the licensee. It was allowed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on November 14, 1983 against which the State of Kerala and its officers have filed CA No. 3442(NT) of 1984. Several other matters were allowed following the said decision against which the State has filed appeals. Another Division Bench of the High Court, however, took a contrary view in AS No. 293 of 1983 and batch disposed of on October 26, 1980. By this judgment, the suits filed by licensees/contractors were dismissed. Following the said judgment, several other appeals were disposed of in favour of the State. The licensees have a filed appeals against those judgments.

3. The Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077 - corresponding to 1902 AD) was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to Import, Export, Transport, Manufacture, Sale and possession of intoxicating liquors and of intoxicating drugs in the State. Section 15 says that no liquor or intoxicating drug shall be sold without a licence from the Commissioner. Section 18-A b provides for grant of exclusive or other privilege of manufacture and sale of liquor. Sub-section (1) says "It shall be lawful for the Government to grant to any person or persons, on such conditions and for such period as they may deem fit, the exclusive or other privilege -

(i) of manufacturing or supplying of wholesale or (ii) of selling by retail or (iii) of manufacturing or supplying by wholesale and selling by retail, any liquor or intoxicating drugs within any local area on his or their payment to the Government of an amount as rental in consideration of the grant of such privilege. The amount of rental may be settled by auction, negotiation or by any other method as may be determined by the Government, from time to time, and may be collected to the exclusion of, or in addition to, the duty of tax leviable under Sections 17 and 18." Section 24 prescribes the Forms and conditions of licence. Section 25 prescribes the counterpart agreement to be executed by licensee. Section 28 says that all duties, taxes, fines and fees payable to the Government under any of the provisions of the Act or of any licence or permit issued thereunder may be recovered as if they are arrears of Land Revenue. Section 29 empowers the Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. It is not necessary to notice other provisions of the Act.

4. Rules have been made by the Government governing the mode of grant of licences, called the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) f Rules, 1974. Rule 6 prescribes the general conditions applicable to licensees of arrack shops, both retail and wholesale. Sub-rule (26) of Rule 6 which constitutes the basis of the later judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court reads : "No remission or abatement of the rental shall be claimable by the licensee on any account whatsoever." Sub-rule (39) says that "the licensee shall be bound by all the rules which have been passed under the 9 Abkari Act and which may hereafter be made under the said Act or under any law relating to Abkari Revenue which may hereafter be made". Rule 8 prescribes the special conditions applicable to licences for the privilege of vending arrack in independent shops. Having regard to their crucial relevance, sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 8 may be extracted here :

"8. (1) The mont
































































































































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 Back to top