R. Selvaraj and others vs Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2001 Supreme(Mad) 1655

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
R. Selvaraj and others – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others – Respondent

Advocates:
Arunagirinathan, for M/s.V.Sanjeevi, for Appellants in W.A.Nos.2740 to 2742 of 2001.
R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel, for M/s.R.G.Narendran, for Appellants in W.A.No.2743 of 2001.
R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel, for M/s.M.Bhaskar, for Appellants in W.A.No.2749 of 2001.
D.Selvaraju, for Appellants in W.A.No.2750 of 2001.
R.Krishnamurthi, Senior Counsel, for M/s.V.Ayyadurai, for Appellants in W.A.Nos.2751 and 2752 of 2001.
P.Chandrasekaran, for Appellant in W.A.No.2753 of 2001.
M.Ravindran, for V.Viswanathan, for Appellants in W.A.Nos.2754 of 2001.
AR.L.Sundaresan, for Appellants in W.A.Nos.2755 to 2758 of 2001.
R.Subramanian, for Appellants in W.A.Nos.2759 and 2760 of 2001.
T.V.Krishnamachari, for Appellant in W.A.Nos.2763 of 2001.
K.Ravi Anantha Paddmanabhan, for Appellant in W.A.Nos.2777 of 2001.
M/s.N.Damodaran, for Appellants in W.A.Nos.2778 to 2784 of 2001.
R.G.Narendran, for Appellant in W.A.No.2785 of 2001.
K.V.Sundararajan, for Appellants in W.A.Nos.2786 to 2792 of 2001.
D.Selvaraju, for Appellant in W.A.No.2797 of 2001.
A.Jinasenan, for Appellant in W.A.No.2803 of 2001.
V.Raghavachari, for Appellant in W.A.No.2815 of 2001.
G.K.R.Pandian, for Appellants in W.A.Nos.2824 and 2825 of 2001.
K.Thennan, for Appellant in W.A.No.2862 of 2001.
S.M.Edward Stanley, for M/s.Muthumani Doraisamy, for Appellant in W.A.No.2874 of 2001.
R.Muthukumarasamy, Additional Advocate General, assisted by K.Mahadevan, Special Government Pleader, for Respondents in all the Appeals.

B.Subhasha Reddy, C.J.: In this batch of cases, the validity of G.O.Ms.No.238, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 9.11.2001 is questioned. The impugned G.O. has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 34 of Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989.

2. The excise year in this State has commenced on 1.8.2001 and expires on 31.7.2002. G.O.Ms.No.115, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 22.6.2001 was issued on the eve of this excise year. For granting the rights of privilege for retail vending Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), applications were invited. Privilege is granted in lieu of the amount paid, which is called ‘privilege amount’, which means the amount determined by the Commissioner for a shop for the grant of privilege based on the guidelines issued by the Government. The privilege amount is fixed on the basis of the local authority like village panchayat, Panchayat Union, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. In 30 districts of Tamil Nadu, a specified number of shops i.e., 6000 were indicated and by adopting the drawal method, the privilege rights were given. But all of such shops were not sold out. Out of 6000 shops notified, 5377 shops

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(Mad) 1655

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAMR. Selvaraj and others – AppellantVersusGovernment of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others – Respondent

Cases Referred (10)

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
R. Selvaraj and others – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others – Respondent