1997 (1) JLJ 171
A.K. Mathur, C.J. and S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
Shatrughanlal Shrivastava and others v. State of M.P. and others
M.P. No. 5091 of 1989; Decided on 20.9.1996.
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 14 -- M.P. Excise Act, 1915 - S. 14 - not ultra vires -- powers of Collector to order closure of liquor shops n are not uncanalised or unfettered. [Para 10
(3) Law -- laying down a particular thing to be done in a particular manner -- it should be done in that manner alone and none else. AIR 1982 SC 6 and 1992 JLJ 545 (SC) followed. [Para 11
(4) Excise Act, 1915 (M.P.) -- S. 24 -- order of closure of liquor shops issued by Collector on decision of the State Govt. -- such order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. [Para 11
(5) Order -- public -- should be construed on the face of it -- post facto explanation cannot justify that order. AIR 1982 SC 16 followed. [Para 12
(6) Excise Act, 1915 (M.P.) -- Ss. 62 and 24 -- General Licence Conditions - R. 8 -- closure of liquor shops under orders of Collector - powers of Collector under Cl. (2) of Rule 8 are not exhaustive -- no compensation can be claimed by lincensees. AIR 1994 MP 130 relied on. [Para 14
(7) Excise Act, 1915 (M.P.) -- S. 62 -- General Licence Conditions -- R. 8 - sale memo issued at the time of auction of shops -- closure of shops clearly mentioned -- no compensation can be claimed if closure is ordered. [Para 14
(8) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- contract unconscionable or unreasonable -- may be struck down -- such contract is open to judicial review. (1995) 5 SCC 482 followed. [Para 15
¼1½ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 24 && dysDVj ds vkns‘k ds v/khu efnjk dh nqdkuksa dk can fd;k tkuk && dysDVj dh ‘kfDr;k¡ vck| rFkk LoPNan ugha gSa && ‘kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx ds fy, i;kZIr ekxZn‘kZd fl)kar micaf/kr gSa && mica/k lafo/kku ds vuq- 14 ds vf/kdkjkrhr ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 10
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14 && e-iz- vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 && /kkjk 14 && vf/kdkjkrhr ugha gS && efnjk dh nqdkusa can djus ds fy, vkns‘k nsus dh dysDVj dh ‘kfDr && vck/k rFkk LoPNan ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 10
¼3½ fof/k && fdlh fof‘k"V ckr dk fdlh fof‘k"V izdkj ls fd;k tkuk vf/kdfFkr && og mlh izdkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,] vU; fdlh izdkj ls ughaA , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 16 rFkk 1992 ts ,y ts 545 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 11
¼4½ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 24 && jkT; ljdkj ds fofu‘p; ij dysDVj }kjk efnjk dh nqdkusa can fd, tkus dk vkns‘k tkjh fd;k x;k && ,sls vkns‘k dks vf/kdkjkrhr ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 11
¼5½ vkns’k && lkoZtfud && ld`rn‘kZus vFkkZUo;u fd;k tkuk pkfg, && ?kVuksÙkj Li"Vhdj.k }kjk ml vkns‘k dks U;k;ksfpr ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 16 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 12
¼6½ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 62 rFkk 24 && lk/kkj.k vuqKfIr ‘krsZa && fu- 8 &7 dysDVj ds vkns‘k/khu efnjk dh nqdkuksa dk can fd;k tkuk && fu- 8 ds [kaM ¼2½ ds v/khu dysDVj dh ‘kfDr lqfoLr`r ugha gS && vuqKfIr/kkfj;ksa }kjk izfrdj dk nkok ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1994 e-iz- 130 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 14
¼7½ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e 1915 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 62 && lk/kkj.k vuqkfIr ‘krsZa fu- 8 && nqdkuksa dh uhykeh ds le; tkjh foØ; Kkiu && nqdkuksa dk can fd;k tkuk Li"Vr% mfYyf[kr && can fd;k tkuk vkfn"V fd, tkus ij izfrdj dk nkok ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 14
¼8½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && yksdkRek fo:) vFkok v;qfDr;qDr lafonk && vfHk[kafMr dh tk ldrh gS && ,slh lafonk dk U;kf;d iqfuoZyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1995½5 ,l lh lh 482 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 15
A.K. Mathur, C.J. -- 1. All these petitions involve common questions of law; therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. M.P. No. 5091 of 1989 and M.P. No. 5067 of 1989 relate to the grant of licence for the period from 1.4.1989 to 31st March 1990.
1. The writ petitions M.P. Nos. 913/93, 914/93, 1818/93, 1884/93, 1943/93 and 1969/93 relate to the grant of licence for the period 1992-93.
2. For convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in M.P. No. 5091/89, Shatraghanlal Shrivastava and others v. State of M.P. and others are taken into consideration.
3. Petitioners by this petition have prayed that section 24 of the M.P. Excise 'Act 1915, (for short the Act) and Rule II (3) of the General Licence Condition Rules may be declared as ultra vires of the Act and Art. 14 of the Constitution of India; that notice dated 8.10.89 (Annexure-F) may be quashed; that respondents may be restrained from giving effect to the aforesaid notice for closure of the liquor shops; that the petitioners may be granted remission of proportionate licence fee for the period the shops remained closed in pursuance of the aforesaid notice; and that they may be paid compensation against the profit and loss to the extent as detailed in Annexure G.
4. Petitioner No. 1 holds a licence in Form C.E. 3 for retail sale of country liquor in respect of Ujjain and Seoni groups of country liquor shops comprising 34 shops. The shops were auctioned in favour of petitioner No. 1 for an annual licence fee of Rs. 1.23 crores. Petitioner No.2 holds a foreign liquor licence in Form F.L. 1 in respect of Sonkachcha foreign liquor shop on an annual licence fee of Rs. 3,10,000.00. Petitioner No.3 also holds a country liquor licence in Form C.S. 3 in respect of Ujjain and Seoni group of country liquor shops. Petitioner No. 4 holds foreign liquor licence in Form P.D. 1 in respect of Station Road Foreign Liquor shop at Ujjain. Petition No. 5, holds a foreign liquor licence in Form F.L. 1 in respect of foreign liquor shops at Indore Gate and Chawk, Ujjain petitioner No.6 also holds a foreign liquor licence in Form F.L. 1 for Freeganj foreign liquor shop. Petitioner No.7 holds foreign liquor licence in Form F.L. 1 in respect of Nai Sadak, Ujjain. All these petitioners obtained the licence in pursuance of an auction held by the State of M.P. According to the terms of the licence, the monthly and each day break up of the licence fee was required to be paid to the respondent, as per details furnished in Annexure D to the petitioner.
5. Rule 8 of the General Licence Conditions framed u/s. 62 of the Act provides that the shops shall be kept open every day throughout the year unless temporary closure has been authorised by the Collector. It further lays down that the shops shall remain closed on such days as the Collector may announce at the time of auction. At the time of auction, certain dry days were notified and six more days on account of Holi, Moharram etc. had to be observed as dry days. In addition to this, the Collector has been further authorised to declare dry days according to local festival. Copy of the list of dry days and other days as may be declared by the Collector was issued along with the licence by Notification dated 22.1.1986, (Annexure E).
6. The petitioners were informed by respondents 4 and 5 that the State Government, by order dated 8.10.89, had ordered closure of all excise shops on 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 October 1989 as dry days, (Annexure F). Therefore, the petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the order of the District Excise Officer and the decision of the Government and the Collector for closure of these shops for 5 days on various grounds. It is also prayed that for closure of the shops for 5 days, proportionate reduction in the licence fee may be given and loss which has been occasioned for these 5 days should also be made good by the State Government.
7. In order to appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the pe
2. M/s. Lilasons Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. and others = (1992 JLJ 545
3. Ashok Kumar Sahu and others v. State of M.P. and others = AIR 1994 MP 130)
4. LIC of India and another v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and others = [(1995) 5 SCC 482]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.