Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ritu Bahri, C.J., Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Luxury Liquors - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 185 OF 2024
Decided On : 14-08-2024
Excise - Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules - Rule 19.1 - The court interpreted Rule 19.1 of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules, emphasizing that experience in the overseas liquor business does not require geographical limitation, thus allowing broader eligibility for licensing.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the issuance of a wholesale liquor license to the respondent, arguing that the respondent lacked the required two years of experience in Uttarakhand, as mandated by the Excise Policy Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the experience requirement in the Excise Policy did not specify that it had to be within Uttarakhand, thus allowing the respondent's experience from another state to qualify.
Issues: Whether the experience of dealing in wholesale imported liquor from another state is valid for eligibility under the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the language of the Excise Policy did not impose a geographical restriction on the experience required for obtaining a wholesale liquor license.
Result: The Special Appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ritu Bahri, C.J.
The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 823 of 2024, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner in the Writ Petition was that, on 21.02.2024 the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules, 2024-25 were notified by the State Government, and, under Rule 19, the procedure for grant of wholesale license for sale of overseas liquor [FL-2(O)] is provided.
3. The appellant-writ petitioner applied for wholesale license for sale of overseas liquor, i.e. FL-2(O), under Rule 19 of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules 2024-25, and was granted the same for the financial year 2024-25 by respondent no. 2, vide letter dated 14.03.2024. Respondent no. 3 was also granted the same license, i.e. FL-2(O) for the financial year 2024-25. The appellant-writ petitioner had challenged the issuance of the said license to respondent no. 3, on the ground that ihe does not meet the condition of eligibility, as mentioned in Clause 19.1(b) of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules, 2024-25, as he does not possess the relevant experience of two years in the business of BWFL-2S (Bonded Warehouse of Foreign Liquor) in the State of Uttarakhand.
4. The issue before the learned Single Judge was, “whether experience of dealing in wholesale imported liquor business earned by a person in other State has to be ignored while considering his eligibility in terms of Clause 19.1(b) of the Excise Rules”. Respondent no. 3 is having BIO (bottled in overseas) wholesale license issued by the competent authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh, under the Import of Overseas Foreign Liquor Rules, 2003, and he has experience of more than two years in dealing with imported liquor business. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition observed that “the interpretation given by the petitioner to clause 19.1(b) of the Rules is not correct. The said rule was inserted to ensure that the person applying for FL-2(O) license should have experience of wholesale business in overseas imported liquor including beer, wine, RTD etc. for a minimum period of two years and it nowhere provides that such experience has to be earned within State of Uttarakhand alone.” The learned Single Judge further observed that “State Government has formulated the policy of granting FL-2(O) license to experienced persons with the object of augmenting revenue. More revenue would be generated when there are more competitors for FL-2(O) license, therefore, the State Government would not have intended to restrict competition by excluding persons having experience in other States and limiting the field of eligibility only to those who have experience of dealing with the business within State of Uttarakhand only. Such condition, if added, would be counter-productive and would defeat the object of formulating the policy.”
5. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner is that respondent no. 3 is having the BIO license issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government, and, in this backdrop, he does not fulfill the criteria of Clause 19.1(b) of the Rules. He further states that, merely having FL-2(O) license, as per Clause 19.1(a), will not make respondent no. 3 eligible as per the Excise Policy for the year 2024-25 for grant of license.
6. On 01.07.2024, when this case was taken up, counsel for the private respondent no. 3 had handed over a copy of the license for sale of overseas liquor to the counsel for the State, which had been issued by the Uttar Pradesh Excise Department. These licenses showed that they had been given to respondent no. 3, and he may sell imported liquor to authorized persons within the State, on payment of permit fee, and he has also to give details of the liquor, which was imported into and exported out of the State. A direction was given to the State to file a b
AI
Experience in the overseas liquor business is valid regardless of the state in which it was acquired, as per the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules.
The court upheld the validity of the Liquor Policy prohibiting public servants from holding liquor licences, affirming the State's authority to impose such conditions in public interest.
The court affirmed that a company cannot be denied a liquor licence based solely on an FIR against a director, emphasizing discrimination and lack of legal basis for such denial.
Point of law : Owner of cinema house cannot challenge the setting up of a new cinema house because it does not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest, the business competitio....
There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor; state policies can modify licensing rights as long as they comply with statutory provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
