The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tender process for settlement of retail vend of India made Foreign liquor and Country liquor was not permissible under Rule 154 of the Tripura Excise Rules.

By Notice Inviting Tender (for short 'NIT'), issued on 18.1.2006, by the Collector of Excise, West Tripura, tenders were invited for settlement of retail vend of Foreign liquor and Country liquor in respect of various shops/locations as mentioned in the NIT with the » MRF fixed for the year 2006-07.

2. The appellant herein, who was a licensee for retail vend of India made Foreign liquor/Country liquor in respect of the shop/location, in question, has put to challenge, on various grounds, the said NIT by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to W.P.(C) No. 118 of 2006, one of the grounds of challenge being that the Tripura Excise Act and Tripura Excise. Rules do not permit granting of settlement of retail vend of India made Foreign liquor/country liquor by taking resort to tender process.

3. The respondents herein resisted the writ petition by contending, inter alia, that theNIT, issued by the respondents, is in accordance with law. As the writ petition has been dismissed by judgment and order, dated 4.8.2006, the writ petitioner is, now, before this Court with the present appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant, and Mr. N.C. Paul, learned Govt. Advocate as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the State respondents.

5. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be noted is that according to Section 2(m) of the Tripura Excise Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), "Intoxicant" means-

"(i) any liquor, or

(ii) any substance from which liquor may be distilled and which is declared by the State Government by notification in the Tripura Gazette to be an intoxicant for the purpose of this Act or

(iii) any intoxicating drug;" Under Section 2(O) of the Act "Liquor" means-

"Intoxicating liquor and includes all liquid consisting of or containing alcohol and any substance which the State Government, by a notification may declare to be liquor for the purpose of the Act."

6. Under Section 18 of the Act, no intoxicant can be sold except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a license granted in that behalf by the Collector in confirmity with the general instructions issued by the State Government in respect of settlement of any class or classes of vend licenses. Section 18, thus, shows that no intoxicant, which, in the light of Section 2(m), includes any liquor i.e. even a foreign liquor-whether India made foreign liquor or otherwise- can be sold except as indicated hereinbefore.

7. Section 20 of the Act empowers the State Government to grant exclusive privilege for manufacture and sale of Country liquor or intoxicating drugs.

8. The appellant herein was granted exclusive privilege for sale of country liquor/India made Foreign liquor in terms of Section 20.

9. It is contended by the respondents that under Rule 29 A of the Tripura Excise Rules, 1990 (for short "the Rules") license for the sale of Foreign Liquor, may with the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner, be granted by the Collector either by selection or by auction or by tender and, hence, the respondents are wholly justified in offering to settle the liquor shops, in question, by tender process. There can be no doubt that Foreign Liquor, according to Rule 29A, can be granted by way of selection or auction or tender.

10. What is, however, of immense important to note is that under Rule 154,

license, in respect of Country liquor and India made Foreign liquor, can be granted by auction, though, in exceptional cases, the Collector, may, with the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner, Government of Tripura, settle shops generally, or a particular shop, by selection and without resorting to auction method.

11. In the present case, since the appellant was a licensee of the Country liquor/India made Foreign liquor, it logically follows that in terms of Rule 154, the requisite license for retail vend could have been granted, preferably, by auction