Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Bhagwati Transformer Corp. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Government Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 3647, 3674, 3682, 3823, 3857, 3835 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 10823, 10893, 10926, 11358, 11472, 11377 of 2022
Decided On : 08-03-2022
Discount - Challenge to Delhi Excise Policy and Tender - Delhi Excise Act, 2009, Rules of 2010 - The court dismissed the applications seeking interim relief to stay the impugned order, which directed L7Z licensees not to give concession, rebate, or discount on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of liquor. The court found that the impugned order was justified as it aimed to regulate the sale, consumption, and transportation of liquor to prevent market distortions and maintain social wellbeing. The court also noted that the impugned order was not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that any stay of the order would lead to market distortions and subsequent consequences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were successful bidders for retail vends of Indian and foreign liquor in the NCT of Delhi, challenged an order directing them not to give discounts on the MRP of liquor. They argued that the new Excise Policy and the Tender expressly permitted the grant of discounts, and that the impugned order was in contravention of the Excise Policy and the terms and conditions of the tender.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was justified as it aimed to regulate the sale, consumption, and transportation of liquor to prevent market distortions and maintain social wellbeing. The court also noted that the impugned order was not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that any stay of the order would lead to market distortions and subsequent consequences.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to the prayer for staying the operation of the impugned order, which directed L7Z licensees not to give concession, rebate, or discount on the MRP of liquor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was justified as it aimed to regulate the sale, consumption, and transportation of liquor to prevent market distortions and maintain social wellbeing. The court also noted that the impugned order was not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that any stay of the order would lead to market distortions and subsequent consequences.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications seeking interim relief to stay the impugned order, which directed L7Z licensees not to give concession, rebate, or discount on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of liquor. The respondents were granted time to file detailed counter affidavits to the writ petitions within one week from the date of the judgment, and the applications were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - CM aPPL. 10823/2022 in W.P.(C) 3647/2022
CM aPPL. 10893/2022 in W.P.(C) 3674/2022
CM aPPL. 10926/2022 in W.P.(C) 3682/2022
CM aPPL. 11358/2022 in W.P.(C) 3823/2022
CM aPPL. 11472/2022 in W.P.(C) 3857/2022
CM aPPL. 11377/2022 in W.P.(C) 3835/2022
1. By this order, I shall decide the above applications seeking interim relief, inasmuch as to stay the impugned order.
2. The common case of the petitioners in these petitions, as contended by their counsel, is a challenge to an order dated February 28, 2022, whereby the Commissioner (Excise) of the Department of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax, Government of NCT of Delhi ('Government of Delhi', hereinafter) has directed that the L7Z licensees shall not give concession, rebate or discount on the Maximum Retail Price ('MRP', for short) of liquor and to strictly abide by Rule 54(3) of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 ('Rules of 2010', hereinafter). It is the submission of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel that some time in the month of June 2021, the Delhi Government approved the new Excise Policy for the year 2021-22. This policy set out the framework for various aspects pertaining to liquor business for the year 2021-22. Consequent to the Excise Policy being approved, the Government of Delhi floated tenders on June 28, 2021 and august 13, 2021 for zonal licences for retail vends of Indian and foreign liquor. The petitioners are private players who participated in the tenders floated on June 28, 2021 and august 13, 2021 and have emerged as successful bidders for different zones within the NCT of Delhi.
3. according to him, the Excise Policy and the Tender expressly permit the grant of discount / rebate / concession by the retail licensees. Clause 4.1.9(viii) of the Excise Policy towards the tail end states that 'The licensee is free to give concession, rebate or discount on the MRP'. He also referred to Clause 3.5.1 of the Tender, which also states that 'The licensee is free to give concession, rebate or discount on the MRP'. He submits that the grant of discount is based on the principles of free market and fair competition in operation. according to Mr. Rohatgi, Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 2010 had prohibited licensees from granting concession, rebate, discount and gift of liquor. However, by way of Delhi Excise (amendment) Rules, 2021, inter-alia, Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 2010 has been omitted. Therefore, it is clear that the law as well as policy and even the Tender permits discounts on MRP. It is his submission that the reliance placed in the impugned order by the respondent on Rule 54 of the Rules of 2010 is clearly erroneous as the same does not relate to discounts. In fact, Rule 54 is inapplicable to the present case, and in any event cannot be cited as a valid basis for the impugned order. Much before the licences were granted, in the pre-bid queries, the response of the Department of Excise with regard to clarification sought on the maximum limit of the discount permissible on the sale of liquor and also with regard to the question when the price of any liquor is fixed, whether the licensee shall be bound to sell such liquor at such price, the answer was 'not related to Tender'. In other words, it is his submission that the licensees were within their rights to provide maximum discount on the sale of liquor and the price of the liquor could not have been regulated by the respondent. That apart, it is his submission that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun. Power to amend the Tender does not exist after the bids are finalized and licences are issued. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to Clause 15.2 of the Tender document.
4. He stated, by the impugned order, the respondent completely takes away the petitioners' right to make business decisions with regard to discount, concession and rebate, which they are empowered to take under the new Excise Policy and as per the Tender document. In fact, the power to g
The impugned order, which directed L7Z licensees not to give concession, rebate, or discount on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of liquor, was justified as it aimed to regulate the sale, consumption, ....
The court upheld the Excise Commissioner's authority to regulate discounts on liquor sales to manage public order and market distortion, affirming legality over business practices despite the Excise ....
There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor; state policies can modify licensing rights as long as they comply with statutory provisions.
Voluntary acceptance of amended policy precludes claiming parity with other licensees and seeking relief from paying license fee based on quota of liquor lifted.
Unilateral extension of a liquor license after its expiry is unlawful and violates statutory provisions and contractual obligations.
Point of law : Owner of cinema house cannot challenge the setting up of a new cinema house because it does not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest, the business competitio....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
