IMPORTANT POINT
The J&K Liquor License and Sales Rules do not prohibit a person from holding both a retail liquor vend license (JKEL-2) and a bottling license (JKEL-6) simultaneously, and any disqualification based on such a prohibition is legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved of and has called in question Order No. 160-EC of 2022, dated 23.08.2022 passed by the Excise Commissioner, J&K, whereby the bid of the petitioner for grant of liquor vend (JKEL-2) at Panchayat Jaganoo, Tehsil and District Udhampur has been rejected and bid facts leading amount forfeited.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner participated in the re-auction of liquor vend in question for which the process was initiated by respondent No. 2 on 23.05. 2022. The allotment of retail liquor vend by way of re-auction was in pursuance of the Excise Policy 2022-23 notified by the Government vide S.O. No. 71, dated 22.02.2022. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder and deposited the bid amount to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- with the respondents. This was, in addition, to the participation fee and earnest money of Rs. 7,25,100/-. The petitioner completed all the requisite formalities and obtained no objection certificate required under J&K Liquor Licence and Sales Rules, 1984 ['Rules of 1984'], but the license in favour of the petitioner was not issued. The petitioner approached the respondents to know the reasons therefor. The petitioner was informed that he was disqualified to hold the licence of retail vend (JKEL-2) for being holder of a licence for bottling (JKEL-6). A formal order in this regard has been passed by the Excise Commissioner on 23.08.2022 which is impugned in this petition.

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, inter alia., on the ground that under the J&K Excise Act Svt., 1958 ['the Act of 1958'] and the Rules framed there under, there is no prohibition for holding JKEL-2 along with JKEL-6 and, therefore, the petitioner has not attracted any disqualification.

4. Per contra, Mr. K.D.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in terms of Rule 19(1) read with Rule 39(6) of the Rules of 1984, the petitioner is disqualified to hold the license JKEL-2 in conjunction with the bottling license i.e. JKEL-6. It is submitted that because of the aforesaid disqualification, the petitioner's bid has been forfeited.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Act of 1958 and Rules framed thereunder.

6. The Act of 1958, in particular, Chapter IV deals with manufacture, possession and sale of liquor and intoxicating drugs. Under section 11 of the Act, no liquor, or intoxicating drug can be manufactured, possessed or sold except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Excise Commissioner in that behalf. It further provides that no distillery or brewery or other place for the manufacture of liquor of any kind shall be constructed or worked except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Excise Commissioner in that behalf.

7. The Act of 1958, nowhere, provides that a person cannot hold two licences of different type together and simultaneously. This is, however, left to be regulated by the Rules, to be framed by the Government under section 25 of the Act. The Government, in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by Sections 3A, 12, 20 & 25 of the Act, has framed the rules known as 'J&K Liquor License and Sales Rules, 1984'. Rule 4 enumerates the classes of licences that can be issued under the Rules.

8. Apart from others, the licence JKEL-2 pertains to retail vending of foreign liquor to the public only and the Competent Authority to issue the licence is the Excise Commissioner. JKEL-6 pertains to bottling of foreign liquor and the Competent authority to issue it is also the Excise Commissioner. 09 Rule 18, which is relevant for considering the controversy raised in the present petition, provides as to which class of licence cannot be held in conjunction with other class or classes of licences. Rule 18, to a