The government can change an earlier policy and the Court should not interfere in policy matters unless it is clearly unconstitutional or shockingly arbitrary.

MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 26. 9. 2005 delivered by the learned single judge in WP (C) Nos. 17960/2005, 14310/2005 and 17805/2005. Since all these appeals involve common questions of law and fact, we are disposing them of together.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioners had prayed for a mandamus directing the Government of NCT of Delhi through the commissioner of Excise to grant L-52 licences to the petitioners in terms of respondent s policy vide public notice dated 22. 11. 2004. They have also prayed for quashing of Condition No. 15 attached to the terms and conditions for grant of licence in form L-52 as per respondent s public notice for the year 2004-05.

( 3 ) IN WP (C) No. 17960/2005 titled S. P. Khanna v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi it is alleged in para 3 (a) of the writ petition that the respondent Government of NCT of delhi had issued a policy on 22. 11. 2004 for grant of L-52 licences in Delhi for retail vending of Indian Made foreign Liquor (IMFL)/beer in private sector for the year 2004-05 onwards and invited applications by public notice dated 22. 11. 2004 from the applicants who held the eligibility criteria as per said public notice. The eligibility criteria is enumerated in para 3 (a) of the writ petition.

( 4 ) IN para 3 (b) of the said writ petition it is mentioned that the petitioner who qualified all the eligibility conditions for grant of L-52 licence applied to the respondent for such a licence with respect to premises taken on lease from Mr. Sanjay Sood vide lease deed dated 13. 1. 2005 with respect to commercial premises bearing No. R-13, Inderpuri, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000/- and submitted its application along with all the requisite documents i. e. along with the lease deed, solvency certificate of Rs. 25 lakh and earnest money of Rs. 2. 5 lakh. A true copy of the application is annexure P2. It is alleged that the petitioner s application was processed by the respondent and found to be in order. However, the respondent did not inspect the premises offered by the petitioner. Instead the respondent issued the public notice dated 7. 2. 2005 declaring that it is going to consider the applications received by it till date. A true copy of the public notice is Annexure P-3. The aforesaid notice dated 7. 2. 2005 states as under:-

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER (EXCISE) Govt. of NCT of Delhi L-Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi-2 PUBLIC NOTICE Excise Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had invited applications for opening of private liquor vends (Licence L-52) vide public notice dated 21/11/04, 22/11/04 and 23/11/04. In response to this sufficient number of applications have been received in the department. Many new private vends have already been opened after processing of such applications and a few more applications are under scrutiny. It has, therefore, been decided to close the scheme with immediate effect. Applications already received by the Department would be considered as per rules and terms and conditions of the scheme but no new applications would be accepted. The status of all pending applications is already available on the department s website: www. Excise. delhigovt. nic. in. Sd/- Commissioner (Excise)

( 5 ) IT is alleged that the writ petitioner had taken a shop on rent at Rs. 40,000/ p. m and had also furnished a solvency certificate of Rs. 25 lakh and deposited earnest money of Rs. 2. 5 lakh and hence he should have been issued the licence. In para 7 of the petition it is mentioned that the respondent had granted certain licences to persons whose applications were submitted much after the writ petitioner s application thereby giving them undue favour, whereas licence was illegally withheld from the petitioner although the petitioner s application was prior and qualified all the requisites. Hence, it is alleged that Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated.

( 6 ) IT is contended that the respondent is hand in glove wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document