Gohil, J. -- 1. The appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6001/ 07 has filed this Writ Appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant-petitioner had filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating therein that though he is not having any liquor licence, but he intends to obtain the licence for selling liquor. Therefore, as per the recent liquor policy of 2006-07, he should also be treated at par with the existing licence holders. It is further contended that the Government has issued liquor policy for the year 2006-07 and has taken decision that the licence of the existing licence holders shall be renewed after payment of 20% extra licence fees. It is further contended that, this decision of the Government is contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 of M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, . 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred as 'Rules of 1996'). It is further contended that though he is not the licence-holder but by issuing such a policy he has been restained from applying for licence as the Government will renew the existing licences on payment of extra fees and this policy is violative of Fundamental rights and Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Return was filed by the Government and Government supported the policy and it was submitted that the policy is not violative of Rule 8 or any fundamental right of the petitioner.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition holding therein that the right to carryon business of liquor is not a fundamental right though the petitioner has right of equality before the law. Learned Single Judge has further held that until and unless validity of Rule 8, under which the shops are allotted, is challenged, this Court cannot strike down the said rules. Learned Single Judge has also considered the provisions of Rule 8 of Rules of 1996 and it was held that this rule does not provide that application shall be invited every year and the learned Single Judge was of the view that it is a contractual matter, until and unless the State acted arbitrarily or mala fidely, no interference can be made in contractual matters, and dismissed the petition, against which the petitioner has filed this writ appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Shri S.N. Kirar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of Writ Petition, the petition was amended and he has prayed for quashment of policy, which was Annexure R-1, but the amended petition was not considered. His contention was that without amending the rules of Rule 8. a contrary policy cannot be issued and a person cannot be debarred from filing an application for getting the licence FL-1 and the decision taken by the Government and published by the Commissioner is contrary to law and the Government cannot take any decision for renewal of old licences on the basis of enhanced fees but the Government has to invite applications for grant of licence and by issuing the aforesaid policy, Government has indirectly debarred the petitioner from filing any application for grant of licence of liquor.

5. In reply Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate, submitted that according to the policy Annexure R -1, Government has authorized the Commissioner to renew the licences on payment of 20% extra licence fees. The policy is in accordance with the rules of 1996 and the aforesaid rule does not prdhibit the Government to adopt the aforesaid mode. It was further submitted that lot of shops are lying vacant for allotment through licences, but the appellant has not filed any application for grant of any licence for any of the area and still 17 blocks are lying vacant where shops are not allotted to anybody else. It was further submitted that