1993 Supreme(SC) 1062

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. Pandian and R.M. Sahai, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 6042 of 1993 with SLP(C) Nos. 2310-17, 3391 and 4152 of 1993
Decided On: 05.11.1993
R. Vijayakumar and Ors. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Excise and Ors. Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: G. Ramaswamy, Senior Adv., E.M.S. Anam and George Poonthothan, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, A.S. Nambiar, Senior Adv. and M.A. Firoz, Adv.

Headnote:

Kerala Excise Act - Rule 13(3) - Challenge - For renewal of licence - On it is alleged that a statement was made on behalf of State to press that licence of appellants shall not be renewed - However since this Court had permitted appellants to approach authorities and yet a statement had been issued on behalf of State Government appellants approached High Court once again for issue of direction to opposite parties to renew licences of appellants for years - This petition was disposed of directing respondents to dispose of applications for renewal filed by appellants as directed by this Court in accordance with law and on merits - In pursuance of this order applications filed by appellants for renewal of their licence for appears to have been forwarded by Excise Commissioner to Board of Revenue which in its turn returned it with instructions to dispose of them in light of - Excise Commissioner rejected applications for renewal in light of as directed by Board - This order has been challenged by a separate Special Leave Petition in which notice was issued - Lengthy arguments were advanced by learned counsel for both sides - One questions that was raised was if appellants have a fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor - This question has been referred to a constitution bench by a bench of three judges of this Court in Civil Appeal - Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P and Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P are therefore directed to be tagged with Civil Appeal - Held, Court find some merit in submission of learned Additional Solicitor General that renewal of fresh grant normally are not dealt with by same yardstick yet we do not consider it necessary to pronounce on it as validity of G.D. issued is subject matter of challenge in other appeals which Court have directed to be heard along with other appeals pending before Constitution Bench - As stated earlier Court are concerned in this appeal only with correctness of order May - Opposite parties have rejected applications filed by petitioners on ground that State Government having taking a policy decision not to issue licences appellants were not entitle to claim renewal - Order was attempted to be justified by Additional Solicitor General as according to him appellants formed a separate class inasmuch as they were issued licences in and therefore they could not claim to be in same group as other licensees who were operating from before - According to him since there were two groups or class of persons one who were operating from before and other who were granted licences in year opposite party did not commit any error of law in rejecting applications of appellants or acted discriminately in renewing licences of other - Court again do not propose to decide this issue in detail or examine it extensively as validity of G.O. has been referred to Constitution Bench - Suffice it to say that classification which can be sustained must have a reasonable nexus with objective sought to be achieved by impugned action - Reason for not renewing licence of appellants was prohibition policy that State is envisaging to enforce - Court may agree that this is a valid ground for reducing number of licensees in State - Court may also agree that such steps can be taken in stages and not at one stroke but facts are otherwise - As stated earlier consumption of liquor has gone up - Volume of imported arrack has been enhanced - Therefore except for appellants who are number State could not point out any circumstance which could establish that policy of prohibition was being enforced or implemented in State - True that some public interested persons are agitating but validity of State action has to be judged on positive steps taken by State for enforcing policy - But in affidavits filed by State no material has been brought on record to show that any concrete step has been taken in this regard - Moreover appellants are hoteliers who granted licence for promoting tourism - No figure has been furnished about traffic in these hotels - Agitation must be against consumption of liquor - How is State curtailing it by permitting import of arrack has not been explained - In fact it is not disputed in affidavit filed by Excise Secretary that import was permitted under new Abkari policy adopted from as State presumed that contractors were purchasing spirit clandestinely and such clandestine imports were adversely affecting State revenue - Affidavit asserts that it was to get over above problem in a logical manner that government desired to make a realistic assumption of consumption - So on one hand Government is taking realistic view by permitting import of arrack which is consumed more by common man and its quota in was one crore bulk litre and on other cancelling licence of persons in entire State of Kerala who were granted licence for promoting tourism as it would help in achieving prohibition policy - Court do not comment any further on it - Appellants who were granted licence in and those who are granted licence and are operating from before are hoteliers and are required under rules to conform to two star hotel standard - Both are required to promote tourism - In all respects their licences are same - Further State does not appear to follow consistent and uniform policy - In June it announced its intention not to issue any licence afresh from September but it did not adhere to if and within a month it issued another order in February deciding grant privilege of selling liquor for promotion of tourism - Appeal Allowed