1980 Supreme(Raj) 311
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
K.D.Sharma, Miss Kanta Bhatnagar, JJ.
Peerulal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1980.
Decided On : 22-08-1980
Advocates:
For the Appellant:B.L. Purohit, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 4:H.M. Parekh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:D.S. Shishodia, Advocate.
The Prohibition Commissioner has the authority to grant licenses for the retail sale of country liquor to authorized persons under Section 31(f) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969, either by auction, on a commission basis, or under any other system sanctioned by the Government.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN PROHIBITION ACT - SECTION 31(F) - LICENSING - INTERPRETATION - VALIDITY OF AMENDMENTS - RIGHT TO TRADE IN LIQUOR - ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(F) AND (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a liquor dealer, challenged the grant of a license to respondent No. 4 for the retail sale of country liquor to authorized persons under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969. The petitioner argued that the license was granted without inviting applications from the public and that the Prohibition Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the license. The petitioner also contended that the grant of the license violated the principles of equality before the law and contravened Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Prohibition Commissioner had the authority to grant the license under Section 31(f) of the Act, either by auction, on a commission basis, or under any other system sanctioned by the Government. The court also held that the petitioner had no fundamental right to trade in liquor and that the grant of the license did not violate the principles of equality before the law or contravene Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the Prohibition Commissioner had the authority to grant the license under Section 31(f) of the Act? 2. Whether the grant of the license violated the principles of equality before the law or contravened Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Prohibition Commissioner had the authority to grant the license under Section 31(f) of the Act, either by auction, on a commission basis, or under any other system sanctioned by the Government. The court relied on the second proviso to Section 76 of the Act, which provided that any appointment, notification, notice, order, rule, or form made or issued under any enactments specified in the Schedule as in force in that area, shall continue to be in force and deemed to have been made or issued under the Act of 1969, unless and until, it is superseded by anything done or any action taken under the said Act. The court also relied on Rule 57 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956, which continued to be in force by virtue of the second proviso to Section 76 of the Act of 1969, and which provided that licenses for the retail sale of excisable articles may be granted either by auction in accordance with the procedure presented in the Rules on Chapter for auction or on commission basis or under any other system sanctioned by the Government from time to time, (for instance guarantee system). 2. The court held that the petitioner had no fundamental right to trade in liquor and that the grant of the license did not violate the principles of equality before the law or contravene Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India. The court relied on the fact that the trade in liquor is excluded from the preview of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India on the ground of its having adverse and reprehensible moral and social effects.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's special appeal.
JUDGMENT
1. - This is a special appeal filed by Peerulal under Section 18 of he Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against an order of a Single Judge of this Court dated July 14, 1980, by which the writ petition of the petitioner for restraining the Excise and Prohibit on Officer, In charge of District Jodhpur from extending the period of licence in favour of respondent No. 4 for sale of country liquor to authorised persons under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act No 17 of 1969, and for quashing the orders, if any that might have been passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 during the pendency of the writ petition and for issuance of any direct on or order that might be deemed expedient in the interests of justice, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, out of which this special appeal arises, may be stated as follows: The petitioner had been dealing in country liquor under a licence issued to him under the Rajasthan Excise Act in the past. At the tine of filing the writ petition, the petitioner had no licence to deal in country liquor but he was interested in obtaining the licence for sale of country liquor. Act No. 17 of 1969 (Rajasthan Prohibition Act) came into force in Jodhpur District with effect from April 1, 1978. After coming into force of this Act, no new permits for the retail sale of the country liquor were granted to any private person. The consumers who were authorised to purchase liquor on the basis of the permits issued In their favour by the competent authority purchased it from the Sale Depot of the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., only. In April 1980 the Excise Commissioner directed the Prohibition Officer Incharge of District Jodhpur to recommend the names of the persons who had been having licence in 1978 when the Prohibition Act came in to force, for the grant of licence for the retail sale of country liquor to authorised consumers, Accordingly the name of respondent No. 4 was recommended by respondent No. 3 for grant of such a licence. This recommendation was made without inviting applications from the public or from any other person interested in obtaining licence for the retail sale of country liquor to authorised parson, On the recommendation of respondent No 3, respondent No. 2 issued a letter of authority to respondent No. 4 authorising the latter to purchase and sell country liquor in retail to persons authorised to purchase the same in Jodhpur City. It was, however, mentioned in the letter of authority issued in favour of respondent No. 4 that the licence would be issued later on. The petitioner came to know on May 1, 1980, that a licence had been granted in favour of respondent No. 4. He thereupon, approached respondent No. 2 through his Counsel and requested him to give a copy of the licence. Respondent No. 2 did not furnish any copy of the licence. The petitioner, therefore, filed writ petition No. 989 of 1980 before this Court which was admitted on May 6, 1980 and prayed for stay of the operation of the licence that was granted to respondent No. 4. This Court issued notice of the stay application to the respondents. Later on, the petitioner came to know that respondent No 2 and 3 were bent upon extending the term of the licence or the authority letters issued in favour of respondent No 4 and for this purpose they have obtained application from respondent No 4 and others. The petitioner apprehended that orders for extending the period of licence or the authorisation would be passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 before June 15, 1980 As according to him, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had no jurisdiction to issue any licence for retail sale country liquor to respondent No. 4 or to extend the period of the licence that bad already been issued in favour of respondent No. 4, the petitioner bed no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court by way of this writ petition, and so he moved th
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
