IMPORTANT POINT
There is no prohibition in the Excise Act or Rules for shifting an F.L.1 Licensed premises from one place to another.

JUDGMENT :

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The Appellant is an F.L.1 License holder issued on 26.10.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Mahe under the Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 (“Excise Act”). Under the F.L. 1 License, the Appellant is permitted to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor (“IMFL”) to other License holders, and not in retail.

2. On 28.02.2017, the Appellant filed an Application before the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Mahe for shifting his licensed Liquor Shop from Mahe to Karaikal under Rules 163 and 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970 (“Excise Rules”).

3. The Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Mahe forwarded the Application to Respondent No. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Karikal vide letter dated 07.03.2017, and requested Respondent No. 3 to conduct an inspection to assess the suitability of the site at Karaikal.

4. Respondent No. 1, a resident of Karaikal, submitted an objection dated 02.06.2017 before the Sub – Collector (Excise), Collectorate, Karaikal to oppose the shifting of the liquor shop to Karaikal. Respondent No. 1 inter alia submitted that pursuant to the Judgment dated 15.12.2016 passed in State of Tamil Nadu v. Balu, (2017) 2 SCC 281 : AIR 2017 SC 262 : 2017 (1) SCJ 586, various liquor shops had been shifted from other regions to the residential areas in Karaikal. The Court had directed that no shop for the sale of liquor could be situated within a distance of 500 meters of the outer edge of the National or State Highways or of a service lane along the Highway.

It was submitted that shifting of the shop was contrary to public interest of the residents of Karaikal. For about 35 houses in Nedunkadu circle, Karaikal, there were 35 liquor shops already operational.

It was further submitted that the Madras High Court vide Order dated 07.03.2003 in K. Murali v. Commissioner (Excise)cumSecretary in W.P. (Civil) No. 39661/2002 had interpreted the expression ‘from one place to another’ in Rules 163 and 209 of the Excise Rules to mean that shifting was permissible only within a particular local area, panchayat or commune, and not from one region to another in the Union Territory.

In view of the restrictive meaning of the word ‘place’, the Licensing Authority could not grant permission to shift the licensed shop of the Appellant from one region to another i.e. from Mahe to Karaikal, which is at a distance of 650 kilometers.

The shifting of liquor shops from one region to another would be in contravention of Rules 163 and 209 of the Excise Rules.

5. Respondent No. 1 and one K. M. Baskar filed W.P. (Civil) Nos. 13081/2017 and 15953/2017 before the Madras High Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining Respondent No. 2 and 4 Excise Authorities from shifting liquor shops from Mahe to Karaikal.

The Madras High Court vide Order dated 26.02.2018 directed the Excise Authorities to consider the objections raised by Respondent No. 1 along with the Application for shifting filed by the Appellant in accordance with law.

6. Respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Karaikal granted a personal hearing to Respondent No. 1 on 01.03.2018.

7. Respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Karaikal vide Order dated 27.03.2018 rejected the objections raised by Respondent No. 1, on the ground that the Order dated 07.03.2003 passed by a single judge of the Madras High Court in K. Murali (supra) was set aside by a division bench vide Order dated 06.09.2005.

8. Respondent No. 1 filed a 2nd W. P. (C) No. 11767/2018 before the Madras High Court to quash the Order dated 27.03.2018, and restrain Respondents No. 2 to 4 Excise Authorities from permitting the relocation of liquor shops from Mahe to Karaikal, and granting liquor licenses in Karaikal.

9. Respondent No. 2 – Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Puducherry vide Order No. 2239/DCE/S2/FL1/2017 – 2018/251 dated 07.06.2018 granted permission to the Appellant to shift t