1988 Supreme(Raj) 890
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, I.S.Israni, JJ.
M/s. Samrat Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3427 of 1988.
Decided On : 5-12-1988
The state must act reasonably and not arbitrarily. A person has a right to be treated equally with others who are similarly situate.
Headnote:
RENEWAL OF LIQUOR BOTTLING LICENSE - ARBITRARY REFUSAL - DISCRIMINATION - RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT, 1950 - RAJASTHAN EXCISE RULES, 1951 - SECTIONS 16, 31 - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bottling plant owner, challenged the non-renewal of his liquor bottling license, alleging arbitrariness and discrimination. The petitioner had obtained a license for 41/2 months, while two other companies, Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals, had their licenses renewed despite being granted licenses earlier than the petitioner. The petitioner had invested in construction, machinery, and other preparations but could not start bottling by the license's expiry date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-renewal of the petitioner's license was arbitrary and discriminatory. The court noted that the petitioner was similarly situated to Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals, who had their licenses renewed, but was treated differently without justification. The court also found that the petitioner had taken steps to prepare for bottling operations and had invested a substantial amount of money.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-renewal of the petitioner's liquor bottling license was arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. Whether the petitioner was similarly situated to Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals, who had their licenses renewed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the state must act reasonably and not arbitrarily. The court found that the Excise Commissioner/State Government had acted arbitrarily in not renewing the petitioner's license while renewing the licenses of Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals, who were similarly situated or even in a weaker position. The court held that the petitioner had a right to be treated equally with others who were similarly situate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Excise Commissioner/State Government to renew the petitioner's license for the period ending 31st March 1989, provided the petitioner starts bottling liquor within a period of one month from the date of the grant of renewal.
JUDGMENT
1. - M/s. Samrat Bottlers (P) Ltd. (for short the petitioner) has challenged Annexure-26 dated 18-7-1938, under which it was communicated to the petitioner that his licence for bottling plant cannot be renewed. The challenge as aforesaid is on the ground that it is arbitrary and discriminatory in as much as two licences, viz., of M/s. Alwar Malt and Agro Food Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., Alwar and M/s. Ajanta Chemicals P. Ltd. Alwar which had been granted bottling licence for the period ending 31st March, 1988, were granted renewal whereas the licence of the petitioner who is better situated was not renewed.
2. The grant of the licence is regulated by the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short the Act) and Rajasthan Excise Rules 1951 (for short the Rules). Under Section 16 of the Act, no excisable article shall be manufactured and under its clause (d), no liquor shall be bottled for sale except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted in that behalf by the Excise Commissioner (or by an Excise Officer duly empowered in this behalf). It appears that State Government took a policy of giving licence for bottling of liquor and one licence was issued to the petitioner for the period ending 31st March, 1988. The licence was issued to the petitioner on 15th Nov., 1987. In other words, the licence of the petitioner for bottling of liquor was effective only for a period of 41/2 months. Similar licences in Alwar for bottling liquor was given to Alwar Malt and Agro Food Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. on 23.5.87, to M/s. Ajanta Chemicals P. Ltd. Alwar, on 14.5.85 and they too were to end on 31st March, 1998 It appears that the petitioner had started the construction of necessary sheds and had dug a well. It had placed orders for the machinery so that the work of bottling of liquor could be taken up. But the petitioner could not in terms of the licence start bottling of liquor by 31st March, 1988. He was called upon by the District Excise Officer under Annexure-10, dated 12.1.88 to deposit renewal fee by 20th February, 1998, so that the licence may be renewed. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being renewal fee vide-Annexure dated 26.2.1988, also requested for renewal of the licence. Under his letter dated 10.3.1988, the petitioner wrote to the District Excise Officer that electric connection has been taken, lease-deed for land has been executed, godown has also been constructed and a boundary wall too has been constructed. A tube well has also been dug and electrical connection has been taken for the purpose. The construction of the remaining part of the building was going on and order has been placed for necessary machinery etc. But under the impugned order, the renewal of the licence of the petitioner for bottling of liquor was not done whereas the renewal of the licence, which was earlier granted to Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals was done.
3. Notices were given to non-petitioners and reply has been filed and so far as the alleged discrimination is concerned, a case has been set-up that the petitioner on the one hand and Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals on the other hand were not similarly situate in as much as the petitioner was not in a position to start bottling of liquor, whereas the other two were in a position to start the same. I therefore, their licences have been renewed and thereafter a notice was issued to each of them that in case they do not start the bottling by 31.5.1988, their licences will be cancelled. Thus. the case of the non-petitioners is that whereas the licence to Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals have been renewed, because they were in position to start bottling the liquor licence of the petitioner was not renewed because he was not in such a position.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that an appeal lies under Section 9-A of the Act to the Divisional- Commissioner and that it is alternative, efficaciou
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
