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

2013 Supreme(AP) 608

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
M/s. Deva Breweries (P) Limited & Another
Versus
Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 28220 of 2005
Decided On : 01-08-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:S. Ravi, Advocate. For the Respondents:R2, N.Raghava Reddy, Advocate, R1, R3 & R4, Government Pleader for Excise.

Headnote:A.P. Brewery Rules 1970 – Rules 3 and 4 - Application for grant of licence for setting up distillery unit – Such application would be considered as per policy of that particular year only in which it has been made- No has any vested right to get license to manufacture or trade in liquor - Exclusive privilege in matter of manufacture and sale of liquor has been conferred on State.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and process the application dt.07-04-2000 submitted by 1st petitioner to the Hon’ble Minister for Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh (with copies marked to respondent no.s 3 and 4) for conversion of the Letter of Intent (granted to petitioners by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 11-01-1993) into a licence for the purpose of manufacture of Beer as per the order dt.20-07-2004 in W.P.M.P.No.15503 of 2004 in W.P.No.2324 of 2003, without insisting that the 1st petitioner apply for the same as per Rules 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Brewery Rules, 1970 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.843 Revenue (Excise-III) Department dt.25-10-2004.

2. The 1st petitioner is a Private Limited Company and the 2nd petitioner is its Director.

3. A Letter of Intent dt.11-01-1993 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Ref. CR.No.94055/Ex/111-I for construction and working of a brewery for the manufacture of Beer at Khammam District for a period of two years subject to the 1st petitioner furnishing to the 4th respondent, a security deposit in the form of a demand draft for Rs.50,000/- from a scheduled bank. The 1st petitioner was also granted industrial licence under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for the manufacture of Beer by the Government of India, Department of Industrial Development, New Delhi.

4. However, Government of Andhra Pradesh kept the Letter Of Intent dt.11-01-1993 issued to the 1st petitioner in abeyance vide Order dt.17-02-1993. On 25-01-1994, a show cause notice was issued to the 1st petitioner proposing to cancel the Letter of Intent issued to it. The Government of India addressed a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh dt.20-07-1994 stating that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is not competent to grant licences for setting up of distillery units and requesting it to review the letter dt.11-01-1993 granting Letter of Intent issued to the 1st petitioner which was subsequently kept in abeyance vide letter dt.17.2.1993.

5. In the mean time, the A.P. Prohibition Ordinance (Ordinance No.19/1994) was issued in December, 1994 introducing prohibition in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was also enacted in February, 1995.

6. The 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.667 of 1995 in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments made to Section 2 (19) and 2 (21) (a) of the AP Excise Act, 1968 and Clause 2 (7) (a) of the AP Prohibition Ordinance insofar as those provisions relate to Beer, contending that they are ultravires of Item-8, List-II, VII Schedule of the Constitution and that Beer is not an intoxicating liquor. It sought a declaration that the inclusion of Beer in the AP Prohibition Ordinance, 1994 while omitting toddy, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. By order dt.30-03-1998, the said writ petition was disposed of holding that provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act,1995 had been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in its judgment dt.21-04-1995 in W.P.No.22999 of 1994 and batch; that in W.P.No.2506 of 1995 and batch, this Court had held that the AP Prohibition Act,1995 did not prohibit the manufacture of liquor; and therefore it would be sufficient if a direction is given to the State of Andhra Pradesh to consider the application of the 1st petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court in W.P.No.2506 of 1995 and batch.

8. While the said writ petition was pending, the 3rd respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1068 Revenue (Ex-III) Department, dt.17-07-1996 withdrawing the Letter Of Intent dt.11-01-1993 issued to the petitioners stating:

(1) there should not be any undue diversion of Molasses to the potable alcohol sector after decontrol of Molasses by Government of India,

(2) To introduce total prohibition in the State of Andhra Pradesh n a phased manner and (3) to imple














































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top