Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1816
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN
The Pondicherry F.L.Ii Wine Merchants Association, Puducherry & Another
Versus
Union of India Rep By The Chief Secretary Government of Puducherry & Others
W.P.Nos.5771, 6977 & 7769 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 2, 2 & 2 of 2010
Decided On : 20-04-2010
For the Petitioners:R. Natarajan, K. Suresh Babu, Advocates.
For the Respondents:E. Vijay Anand, Govt. Advocate (Pondicherry).
The authority of the State to make Rules as per the Pondicherry Excise Act, compliance with statutory provisions, and the limited scope of the Court's intervention in policy matters and administrative decisions.
Headnote:
Licence Fee - Pondicherry Excise Act - 70(3) - Rule 118, Rule 119(bb) - The court discussed the authority of the State to make Rules as regards matters specified in the Act, particularly fixing of licence fee. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with Section 70(3) of the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970, which requires Rules made by the State to be laid before the Assembly for approval. The court rejected the plea that the amendment was arbitrary and illegal, emphasizing that as long as the notification complies with the provisions of the Act, no exception could be taken to the amendment made in respect of the licence fee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the enhancement of licence fee under the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970, citing arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, and mala fides. The court considered the compliance of Section 70(3) of the Act, objections filed, and the authority of the Government to make Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification enhancing the licence fee was valid and in compliance with the Act. It rejected the plea of the petitioners, emphasizing that the policy decision of the State to enhance the licence fee was within the domain of the State and not for the Court to interfere.
Issues: Compliance with Section 70(3) of the Pondicherry Excise Act, arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, and mala fides.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory provisions, the authority of the State to make Rules, and the limited scope of the Court's intervention in policy matters and administrative decisions.
Final Decision: The writ petitions challenging the notification enhancing the licence fee were dismissed by the court.
The writ petitioner in W.P.No.6977 of 2010 seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the notification dated 29.3.2010 published in the Government Extraordinary Gazette No.12 dated 30.3.2010 on the file of the second respondent therein.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.6977 of 2010 is Pondicherry F.L. II Wine Merchants Association, stated to have been constituted for the purpose of safeguarding the rights and interest of its members besides the public. The members of the petitioner Association are the licensees granted with FL 2 Licence by the Excise Authorities in the Government of Puducherry in terms of the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970.
3. The members of the petitioner Association draw IMFL products from the FC 1 Licensees. Under Section 70 of the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970, the Government is empowered to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act by issuing notification. Sub Section (2) lists out the areas pertaining to which Rules can be framed by the Government. Sub Section (3) states that every Rule made under the Act shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly, Pondicherry, while is in session, for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions. If the Legislative Assembly makes any modification in the Rule or decides that the Rule should not be made or issued, the Rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or will have no effect, as the case may be. However, such modification or annulment would be without prejudice to the validity of anything done previously under the said Rule.
4. Rule 118 of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970 deals with licence fee payable by the licensees falling under different heads of licence. Rule 118(a) of the said Rules provides for licence fee payable by holders of FL 1 Licence. Rule 118(b) provides for licence fee in respect of FL 2 Licence with permission to serve liquor for consumption within the licensed premises. Rule 119(bb) provides for FL 2 Licence without permission to serve liquor for consumption within the licensed premises. Rule 118(c) provides for FL 3 Licence – one day licence and Rule 118(d) provides for Additional licence to the bar licence holders for pub centres.
5. The grievance of the petitioner herein relates to the enhancement of licence fee. It is seen that under Notification No.15306/DC(E)/S1/2009 dated 22.2.2010, the Government of Puducherry published a draft of the amendment proposed, modifying the licence fee fixed under Rule 118 of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970. As far as FL 1 licence is concerned, the licence fee at Rs.3,00,000/- was raised to Rs.6,00,000/-. As regards FL 2 licence with permission to serve liquor for consumption within the licensed premises, the licence fee at Rs.2,00,000/- was raised to Rs.4,00,000/-. As regards FL 2 licence without permission to serve liquor for consumption within the licensed premises, the licence fee at Rs.1,75,000/- was raised to Rs.3,00,000/-. The notification was to be effected from 1st April 2010. The notification provides that any objection or suggestion on this revision sent by any person to the Government of Pondicherry within a period of ten days from the date of publication of the notification would be considered by the Government.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner filed their objections before the Government. After considering the same, a final notification No.15306/DC(E)/ S1/2009 dated 29th March 2010 was issued on 29th March 2010, amending the Rule for licensees.
7. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the enhancement of the licence fee by 100% on the existing fee structure is arbitrary in so far as no reasons are assigned for the enhancement. The petitioner further states that the petitioner Association filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the notification in W.P.No.5771 of 2010. While the writ petition was pending, the subsequent notification had been made on 29.3.2010 on the enhancement of the fee.
