Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 270
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Before Mr. S.R. Alam,Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe
CHINGALAL YADAV
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
W.P. No.1632/2010 Of
Decided On : Mar 26,2010
Headnote:(1) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R.8(1)( a) -- M.P. Country Spirit Rules, 1995 -- R.9 -- Liquor Policy 2010-11 -- not discriminatory or unfair -- does not create a monopoly in favour of existing licensees-aimed at generation of more revenue -- elimination and exclusion from business is inherent in nature of liquor business.
The Division Bench having found difficulty in agreeing with the view taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Madan Mohan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2008(III) MPWN 76], has referred the following questions for the opinion of the Larger Bench:
(1) Whether in the language of rule 8(1)(a) of the M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 and rule 9 of the M.P. Country Spirit Rules the Government has power to renew the licence or it has to invite applications for each and every shop, every year?
(2) Whether the judgment in the matter of Madan Mohan (supra), decides the law correctly when it reads "or in any such other manner as the State Government may direct from time to time" will qualify the powers of the Government in granting the licence or the above referred phrase has to be read in relation to disposing of the applications which cannot be disposed of by draw of lottery?
(3) Whether 2010-11 liquor policy which relates to renewal is a valid policy and whether such policy is likely to create monopoly in favour of all such persons who are ready and willing to give 20% extra on the existing basic licence fee and licence fee and such persons are providing 80% of the revenue?
(4) Whether the policy is a valid policy when it says that the applications for grant of the licence shall not be invited but an application for renewal shall only be entertained while rule 8(1)(a) provides that the licence in Form FL1 shall be granted individually on fixed basic licence fee and licence fee, by inviting applications for each shop?
(5) Whether the judgment in the matter of Madan Mohan Chaturvedi (supra), referred to above decides the question of vires of the policy and if no, whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider the constitutional validity/statutory validity of the policy? [Para 1
Held: We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the expression or in such procedure which may be prescribed by the State Government from time to time means that it empowers the Government to prescribe the mode of disposal of applications for grant of licence by renewal of applications submitted by existing licensees.
Thus, the entire policy is aimed at generation of more revenue in lieu of parting with the provilege to deal in the business of liquor. Thus, the new policy in our considered opinion cannot be said to be arbitrary and irrational. The new policy also does not contravene either the provisions of the Constitution or any statutory provisions, since, elimination and exclusion from business is held to be inherent in the nature of liquor business, therefore, the policy cannot be assailed on the ground that it is discriminatory. The argument that the policy creates a monopoly in favour of existing licensees cannot be accepted as the question of monopoly would arise only when a trade which could be carried on by all persons is entrusted by law to one or more person, to the exclusion of general public which is not the case in business of liquor. AIR 1954 SC 22, AIR 1972 SC 1863 and (1994)6 SCC 651 followed. AIR 1972 SC 1816, AIR 1969SC 1081,AIR 1990 P&H 144 and AIR 2008 SC 2012 distinguished. [Paras 33 & 49
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 14, 19 and 47 -- business in liquor -- not a fundamental right -- a special category by itself -- being injurious to health, safety and welfare of the general public -- cannot be treated as equal with other trades on the touchstone of Art. 14. AIR 1975 SC 1121, AIR 1951 SC 318, AIR 1954 SC 22, AIR 1957 SC 414, AIR 1958 SC 398, AIR 1972 SC 1863, AIR 1957 SC 699, AIR 1972 SC 1816, 1975 JLJ 722 (SC), (1995)1 SCC 57, (2004)11 SCC 26 and (2009)3 SCC 157 followed. [Para 28
(3) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R.3 -- grant of licence for manufacture and sale of liquor -- is a matter of economic policy -- cannot be interfered by the Court -- unless plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide. (1980)3 SCC 97, 1987 JLJ 53 (SC), (1996)2 SCC 405, (1998)4 SCC 117, 2002(1) BLJ 110 (SC), (2003)4 SCC 289 and (2009)7 SCC 561 followed. [Para 41
(4) Interpretation of Statutes -- statutory provision open to more than one interpretation -- the Court has to choose the one which represents the true intention of the Legislature. AIR 1966 SC 361 and AIR 2002 SC 1432 referred to. 1987 JLJ 53 (SC) followed. [Para 32
(5) Interpretation of Statutes -- principle of executive construction -- ambiguous rule construed by the State Government -- continued for a long period -- is an admissible aid to its interpretation by the Court -- cannot be disregarded except for cogent reasons. AIR 1996 SC 285 and AIR 1986 SC 566 followed. [Para 35
(6) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R.B(1)(a) -- M.P. Country Spirit Rules, 1995 -- R.9 -- principle of Reddendo Singula Singulis -- has no application while interpreting both the rules. Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh (12th Edition) page 515 relied on. [Para 55
¼1½ fons‘kh efnjk fu;e] 1996 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 8 ¼1½ ¼d½ && e-iz- ns‘kh fLifjV fu;e] 1995 && fu-9 && efnjk uhfr 2010&11 && foHksndkjh ;k v_tq ugha && fo|eku vuqKfIr/kkfj;ksa ds i{k esa ,dkf/kdkj dk l`tu ugha djrh && vf/kd jktLo dk mRiknu gh bldk y{; && dkjckj ls fu"dklu rFkk viotZu efnjk dkjckj dh izd`fr esa varfuZfgrA
[kaM U;k;ihB us enu eksgu prqosZnh fo- e/; izns‘k jkT; ¼2008¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 76] esa bl U;k;ky;] esa bl U;k;ky; dh vU; [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk viuk, x, n`f"Vdks.k ls lger gksus esa dfBukbZ dk vuqHko dj fuEufyf[kr iz‘u cM+h U;k;ihB dh jk; ds fy, fufnZ"V fd, gS%
¼1½ D;k e-iz- fons‘kh efnjk fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 8¼1½¼d½ rFkk e-iz- ns‘kh fLifjV fu;e] 1995 ds fu;e 9 dh Hkk"kk esa ljdkj dks vuqKfIr dk uohdj.k djus dh ‘kfDr gS ;k bls izR;sd nqdku ds fy, izR;sd o"kZ vkosnu vkeaf=r djus gSa\
¼2½ D;k enu eksgu ¼iwoksZDr½] ds ekeys esa fu.kZ; fof/k dk lgh fofu‘p; djrk gS tc blesa i<+k tkrk gS ^^;k dksbZ ,slh vU; jhfr esa tSlk jkT; ljdkj le;≤ ij funs‘k ns**\ vuqKfIr iznku djus esa ljdkj dh ‘kfDr;k¡ lhfer djsaxh ;k Åij fufnZ"V okD;ka‘k dks mu vkosnuksa dk fuiVkjk djus ds lanHkZ esa i<+k tkuk gksxk tks ykVjh }kjk fuiVk, ugha tk ldrs\
¼3½ D;k efnjk uhfr 2010&11] tks uohuhdj.k ls lacaf/kr gS] fof/kekU; uhfr gS rFkk D;k bl uhfr ls mu leLr ,slh O;fDr;ksa ds i{k esa ,dkf/kdkj dk l`tu fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS tks fo|eku ewy vuqKfIr ‘kqYd rFkk vuqKfIr ‘kqYd ij 20 izfr‘kr vfrfjDr nsus ds fy, rS;kj vkSj jtkean gS rFkk ,sls O;fDr dk 80 izfr‘kr miyC/k djk jgs gS\
¼4½ D;k uhfr fof/kekU; uhfr gS tc blesa dgk tkrk gS fd vuqKfIr iznku djus ds fy, vkosnu vkeaf=r ugha fd, tk,¡xs cfYd ek= uohuhdj.k ds fy, vkosnu xzg.k fd;k tk,xk tcfd fu;e 8¼1½¼d½ mica/k djrk gS fd iz:i ,Q ,y 1 esa vuqKfIr izR;sd nqdku ds fy vkosnu vkeaf=r dj fu;r ewy vuqKfIr ‘kqYd rFkk vuqKfIr ‘kqYd ij O;fDrxr :i ls iznku dh tk,xh\
¼5½ D;k Åij fufnZ"V enu eksgu prqosZnh ¼iwoksDr½] ds ekeys esa fu.kZ; uhfr dh ‘kfDrerk ds iz‘u dk fofu‘p; djrk gS rFkk ;fn ugha] D;k bl U;k;ky; dks uhfr dh lafo/kkfud oS/krk@dkuwuh oS/krk ij fopkj djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gS\
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % blfy,] gesa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa dksbZ fgpfdpkgV ugha gS fd vfHkO;fDr ^^;k ml izfdz;k esa tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij fofgr dh tk,** ls vfHkizsr gS fd ;g jkT; ljdkj dks fo|eku vuqKfIr/kkfj;ksa }kjk izLrqr vkosnuksa ds uohuhdj.k }kjk vuqKfIr iznku djus ds fy, vkosnuksa ds fuiVkjs dk rjhdk fofgr djus ds fy, l‘kDr djrh gSA
bl izdkj laiw.kZ uhfr dk y{; efnjk ds dkjckj esa dk;Z djus ds fy, fo‘ks"kkf/kdkj ls vyx gksus ds LFkku ij vf/kd jktLo dk mRiknu gSA bl izdkj] gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa ubZ uhfr dks euekuk rFkk vfoosdh ugha dgk tk ldrkA ubZ uhfr lafo/kku ds mica/kksa ;k fdUgha dkuwuh mica/kksa dk mYya?ku Hkh ugha djrh gS] D;ksafd] dkjckj ls fu"dklu rFkk viotZu efnjk dkjckj dh izd`fr esa varfuZfgr Bgjk;k x;k gS] blfy, uhfr dk bl vk/kkj ij vH;kdze.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ;g foHksndkjh gSA cgl dh uhfr fo|eku vuqKfIr/kkfj;ksa ds i{k esa ,dkf/kdkj dk l`tu djrh gS] Lohdkj ugha dh tk ldrh D;ksafd ,dkf/kdkj dk iz‘u dsoy rHkh mRiUu gksrk gS tc dksb O;olk; tks lHkh O;fDr;ksa }kjk fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] lkekU; turk dk voitZu dj ,d ;k vf/kd O;fDr dks fof/k }kjk U;Lr fd;k tkrk gS tks efnjk ds dkjckj dk ekeyk ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 22] , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 1863 rFkk ¼1994½6 ,l lh 651 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 1816] , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 1081] , vkb vkj 1990 iatkc ,oa gfj- 144 rFkk , vkb vkj 2008 ,l lh 2012 izHksfnrA
¼iSjk 33 ,oa 49½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 14] 19 rFkk 47 && efnjk dk dkjckj && ewy vf/kdkj ugha && Lo;a esa ,d fo‘ks"k laoxZ && lkekU; turk ds LokLF;] lqj{kk rFkk dY;k.k ds fy, gkfudj gksus ds dkj.k && vuq- 14 dh dlkSVh ij vU; O;olk;ksa ds leku ugha ekuk tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 1121] , vkb vkj 1951 ,l lh 318] , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 22] , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 414] , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 398] , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 1863] , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 699] , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 1816] 1975 ts ,y ts 722 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼1996½1 ,l lh lh 57] ¼2004½11 ,l lh lh 26 rFkk ¼2009½3 ,l lh lh 157 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 28½
¼3½ fons‘kh efnjk fu;e] 1996 ¼e-iz-½ & fu-3 && efnjk ds fofuekZ.k rFkk fodz; ds fy, vuqKfIr dk iznku fd;k tkuk && vkfFkZd uhfr dk ekeyk gS && blesa U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk && tc rd fd ;g Li"Vr;k euekuh] vfoosdh ;k vln~Hkkoh u gksA ¼1980½3 ,l lh lh 97] 1987 ts ,y ts 53 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼1996½2 ,l lh lh 405] ¼1998½4 ,l lh lh 117] 2002¼1½ ch ,y ts 110 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼2003½4 ,l lh lh 289 rFkk ¼2009½7 ,l lh lh 561 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 41½
¼4½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && dkuwuh mica/k dk ,d ls vf/kd fuoZpu gks ldrk gS && rc U;k;ky; dks ,slk fuoZpu pquuk gS tks fo/kku&eaMy dk lgh vk‘k; izLrqr djsA , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 361 rFkk , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 1432 fufnZ"VA 1987 ts ,y ts 53 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 32½
¼5½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && dk;Zikyd vFkkZUo;u dk fl)kar && vLi"V fu;e dk jkT; ljdkj }kjk vFkkZUo;u fd;k x;k && yacs le; rd tkjh jgk && U;k;ky; }kjk bldk fuokZpu djus ds fy, ;g xzkg~; lgk;rk gS && fcuk rdZiw.kZ dkj.kksa ls bldh vogsyuk ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 285 rFkk , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh lh 566 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 35½
¼6½ fons‘kh efnjk fu;e] 1996 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-8 ¼1½ ¼d½ && e-iz- ns‘kh fLifjV fu;e] 1995 && fu- 9 && jsMsUMks flaxqyk flaxqfyl dk fl)kar && nksuksa fu;eksa dk fuoZpu djrs le; ykxw ughaA U;k- ts-ih-flag dh ^^fizafliYl vkQ LVsV;wVjh baVjfizVs‘ku**] ckjgok¡ laLdj.k] i`"B 515 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 55½
( 1. ) S. R. Alam,C. J. :-The Division Bench having found difficulty in agreeing with the view taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Madan Mohan Chaturvedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(ILR 2008 MP 2778) has referred the following questibns for the opinion of the Larger Bench :- (l)Whether in the language of Rule 8(1)(a) of the M.P. -Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 and Rule 9 of the M.P. Country Spirit Rules the Government has power to renew the licence or it has to invite applications for- each and every shop, every year? (2) Whether the judgment in the matter of Madan Mohan(supra) decides the law correctly when it reads"or in any such other manner as the State Government may direct from time to time " will qualify the powers of the Government in granting the licence or the above referred phrase has to be read in relation to disposing of the applications which cannot be disposed of by draw of lottery? (3) Whether 2010-2011 Liquor Policy which relates to renewal is a valid policy and whether such policy is likely to create monopoly in favour of all such persons who are ready and willing to give 20% extra on the existing basic licence fee and licence fee and such persons are providing 80% of the revenue? (4) Whether the policy is a valid policy when it says that the applications for grant of the licence shall not be invited but an application for renewal shall only be entertained while Rule 8(l)(a) provides that the licence in Form FL-1 shall be granted individually on fixed basic licence fee and licence fee, by inviting applications for each shop? (5) Whether the judgment in the matter of Madan Mohan Chaturvedi referred to above decides the question of vires of the policy and if no, whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider the constitutional validity/statutory validity of the policy?
( 2. ) In order to appreciate the questions referred and to resolve the controversy, it would be appropriate to state few necessary facts which briefly stated, are that the Excise Commissioner announced Excise Policy for grant of licence in respect of country/foreign liquor retail shops for the year 20.10-2011(hereinafter referred to as the New Policy).The New Policy was published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 28.1.2010. It provides that the applications are to be invited at the first instance from the existing licensees for allotment of shops of country/foreign liquor by way of renewal provided they offer 20% extra licence fees on the reserved price of previous year,i.e., 2009-10. Clause 5 of the policy provides that reserved bid approved for 2010-2011 would be 20% over and above, the reserved bid approved for 2009-2010. Thus, if the existing licence holder applies for renewal of his licence stating that he is ready and willing to pay 20% extra, on the reserved bid approved for the 2009-2010, his licence shall be renewed. Clause 9 provides that renewal will take place only when the said renewal will generate more than 80% of the estimated revenue for the year 2010-2011 at the district level. Under the New Policy left over shops are to be allotted by way of tender.
( 3. ) Salient feature of new policy is that renewal of licence is dependent on fulfillment of twin conditions, namely, an existing licensee applies for renewal with the offer that he is ready and willing to pay 20% over and above on the reserved bid approved for previous year and the renewal shall take place only when the said renewal will generate more than 80% of the estimated revenue at the district level.
( 4. ) In the present bunch of cases, there are two sets of petitions. Petitioners of Writ Petition No.1632/2010 are aggrieved with the New Policy to the extent it prevents them from making an offer at par with the existing licencees of 2009- 2010,even if,they are ready and willing to submit a higher offer and, therefore, they have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue the application forms and consider their applications which may be s
