PIL should protect the rights of the disadvantaged and not challenge administrative decisions without showing adverse effects on the vulnerable sections of society or state revenue.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. The Petitioner, who is a Practicing Advocate of the City of Guwahati has filed this Public Interest Litigation (for short PEL) praying for directing the Respondents not to act upon the order dated 1.9.2005 issued by the Commissioner of Excise, Assam, whereby use and sale of foreign liquor in bottles 180 ml. and 375 size ml has been replaced by the bottles of 200 ml and 500 ml in size respectively.

2. We have heard Mr. G. Uzir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mrs. B. Goyal, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

3. Mr. Uzir, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notification dated 1.9.05 issued by the Commissioner of Excise, Govt. of Assam only relating to the change of size of IMFL bottles from 180 ml and 375 ml to 200 ml and 500 ml respectively as it will encourage more consumption of alcohol by the consuming public and would likely to cause loss of revenue by the State Government, as the price of IMFL in the neighbouring states are lower than the price prevailing in the State of Assam. Mr. Uzir, therefore, submits that this Court may entertain the present PIL and issue necessary direction to the Respondent-authorities to withdraw the said notification dated 1.9.05. Mr. Uzir, during the course of argument has also submitted that in fact the Govt. of Assam in Excise Department has taken a decision to defer the decision of change of such bottles until further orders, which has been communicated by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department to the Commissioner of Excise vide communication dated 4.10.05.

4. Mrs. B. Goyal, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has submitted that the present PIL is not maintainable as by the present petition, the Petitioner is not espousing the cause of people who is in a disadvantaged position or for their welfare. The further submission of Mrs. Goyal is that as the decision to change the size of IMFL, bottles is not an issue of public importance and not violative of any fundamental rights of any citizen and the Petitioner has failed to indicate any failure on the part of the State authorities to discharge any constitutional duties and functions or violation of any constitutional or legal rights of any citizen, the present petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. It has further been contended that the Petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate as to how any legal, constitutional or fundamental rights of any section of the citizen has been violated by the impugned order dated 1.9.05. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the Petitioner has failed to give any particulars in supports of his contention that because of the change of size of the bottles of IMFL, there is likelihood of loss of Government revenue. According to the learned Counsel, this Court will not make any roving enquiry while entertaining a PIL. The learned Counsel therefore prays that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings in the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience we reproduced below the relevant paragraphs and the averments made by the Petitioner in the petition to reflect his grievance.

4. While selling IMFL by the retailers they have to procure the same from the office of manufacturers of various brands of IMFL with the standard norms fixed by the Government of India in quality and the size of the bottles. At present, as per all India standard norms there are 180 ml, 375 ml, 500 ml, 750 ml and 1000 ml size of bottles of IMFL are prevailing in India. The idea of introducing 180 ml and 375 ml size of bottles of IMFL was to accommodate the people of very lower income group, mainly the labourer class, who normally used to drink liquor after a hard day's work but of a particular limit within his limited income. As such, in th