MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ajay Kumar Mittal, Vijay Kumar Shukla,JJ.
Maa Vaishno Enterprises & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7373 of 2020, 7389 of 2020, 7472 of 2020, 7473 of 2020, 7474 of 2020, 7490 of 2020, 7520 of 2020, 7567 of 2020, 7576 of 2020, 7577 of 2020, 7578 of 2020, 7738 of 2020, 7764 of 2020, 7767 of 2020, 7771 of 2020, 7804 of 2020, 7805 of 2020, 7808 of 2020, 7810 of 2020, 7811 of 2020, 7812 of 2020, 7815 of 2020, 7867 of 2020, 7918 of 2020, 8016 of 2020, 8084 of 2020, 8131 of 2020, 8137 of 2020, 8139 of 2020, 8153 of 2020, 8159 of 2020, 8160 of 2020, 8259 of 2020, 8260 of 2020, 8363 of 2020, 8365 of 2020, 8575 of 2020
Decided On : 29-06-2020
JUDGMENT
Ajay Kumar Mittal, C.J. - This order shall dispose of a bunch of 37 writ petitions preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing WP Nos.7373, 7389, 7472, 7473, 7474, 7490, 7520, 7567, 7576, 7577, 7578, 7738, 7764, 7767, 7771, 7804, 7805, 7808, 7810, 7811, 7812, 7815, 7867, 7918, 8016, 8084, 8131, 8137, 8139, 8153, 8159, 8160, 8259, 8260, 8363, 8365 and 8575 of 2020, as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that common questions of fact and law are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from WP No.7373/2020 wherein the auction process conducted by the respondents for grant of licence for the retail liquor shops has been called in question by the petitioners and further directions have been sought against the respondents to revalue the same; restrain them to issue licences to the petitioners; refund the money deposited by the petitioners and further to set aside the offers made by the petitioners and acceptance thereof by the respondents-State. In W.P. Nos.7520, 7567, 7576, 7578, 8259 and 8260 of 2020, the petitioners, in addition, apart from assailing the Amended Excise Policy dated 23.05.2020, have also challenged the Excise Policy 2020-21 dated 25.02.2020 specifically Clauses 9.6, 10.1.4, 10.1.5, 10.1.9, 44 and 48 thereof.
2. The marathon pleadings in the form of petition, response, rejoinder, counter-rejoinder, affidavits, additional affidavits and interlocutory applications have been filed, which has necessitated referring to them in detail in succeeding paragraphs.
3. The essential facts for the just decision of the questions involved herein, as narrated in W.P. No.7373/2020 may be noticed. The petitioners, who are 30 in number, are liquor contractors, whose highest offers were accepted or who have opted for renewal of their previous years licences with increased licence fees to run the shops for one year w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. The petitioners have been declared as successful bidders to run the respective liquor shops in various districts of State of Madhya Pradesh. In para 5.16 of the petition, a chart has been incorporated showing the districts and groups which have been allotted to the petitioners in respective districts of the State. The price of allotment of such shops/groups has also been enumerated against each petitioner.
4. The retail sale of foreign and country liquor in the State of Madhya Pradesh is done by retail shops for which licences are issued to individuals in accordance with the Excise policy framed by the State Government every year. The State Government formulated the Excise policy for the financial year 2020-21, which was notified in Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 25.02.2020 whereunder, the licence period of the licensees had to commence from 01.04.2020 and to conclude on 31.03.2021. A perusal of Clause 1 of the policy shows the mode in which the licences for the shops were to be issued. As per clause 1(1) thereof, the entire districts of four metropolitan cities of the State i.e. Indore, Bhopal, Jabalpur and Gwalior were to be geographically divided into two groups having both the nature of liquor shops as far as possible. Clause 1(2) provided the remaining 12 Districts having Municipal Corporations i.e. Sagar, Ratlam, Ujjain, Khandwa, Burhanpur, Dewas, Satna, Katni, Rewa, Singrauli, Chhindwara and Morena to have single group of liquor shops. The execution of the shops referred to in sub-clause (1) and (2), was to be done through e-tendering cum auction and the reserve price for the shops was fixed 25% higher than the previous year's annual value. As per Clause 1(3), except for the districts mentioned in Clause 1(1) and 1(2), in all other districts, the annual price of single groups of liquor shops prevailing in the year 2019-20 will be increased by 25% for the year 2020-21 and will be executed according to previous year's system i.e. through renewal, lottery and e-tender (closed bid and auction). As per Clause 68 thereof, the
ABL International Ltd. and others vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others
Air India Limited vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and others
Ajodhya Prasad Shaw vs. State of Orissa
Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. vs. Union of India
Anwar Hasan Khan vs. Mohammad Shafi and others
B.K. Srinivasan vs. State of Karnataka
Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Sipahi Singh and others
Delhi Development Authority vs. Joint Action Committee
Delhi Development Authority vs. Kenneth Builders and Developers (P) Ltd. and others
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union vs. Union of India
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Union of India
Har Shankar vs. Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors.
Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India
K.P. Chowdhary vs. State of M.P.
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Krishna Kumar Narula etc. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others
M/s Besco Limited vs. The West Bengal State Electricity and Distribution Company Ltd.
M/s Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. vs. State of Bihar
Mohan Kumar Singhania and others vs. Union of India and others
Mohd. Fida Karim and Another vs. State of Bihar and others
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others
Mulamchand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. vs. Khyaliram Jagannath
Nanhibai vs. Excise Commissioner, State of M.P.
Nashirwar and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
P.N. Kaushal & Others vs. Union of India & Others
Ram Ratan Gupta vs. State of M.P.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority
Ramniklal N. Bhutta vs. State of Maharashtra
Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.
Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangur and Company
Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria vs. Union of India
Smt. Sushila Devi and another vs. Hari Singh and others
State of A. P. & Others vs. McDowell & Co and Others
State of Bihar vs. M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Brothers Ltd.
State of Haryana and others vs. Lal Chand and others
State of Kerala vs. Kandath Distilleries
State of M.P. vs. Firm Gobardhan Dass Kailash Nath
State of Punjab vs. Dial Chand Gian Chand & Co.
Syed Israr Masood, Forest Contractor, Ret Ghat, Bhopal vs. State of M.P.
T.N. Education Deptt., Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Assn. vs. State of T.N.
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India
Timber Kashmir Pvt. Ltd. etc. etc. vs. Conservator of Forests, Jammu & Ors. etc.
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Ltd. vs. Indure Pvt. Ltd. and others
Union of India and others vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another
Union of India vs. A.L. Rallia Ram
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs. Union of India and others
Vithal Dattatraya Kulkarni and Others vs. Shamrao Tukaram Power SMT and Others
gpt-4
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.