The government lawfully allocated liquor licenses to cooperatives after failing multiple auctions, reinforcing its regulatory authority in the liquor trade.

1. In all the above Writ Appeals as well as in Writ Petition No. 209 of 1997, the challenge of the petitioners / appellants is against the attempt of the respondents to allot certain liquor shops governed by the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail vending) R.1989, (hereinafter called as 'the rules') to Co - operative Societies or to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation or to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, by nomination, in preference to the petitioners / appellants. All the matters were dealt with by a learned single Judge of this Court, except Writ Petition No. 209 of 1977 and a common order was passed by the learned Single judge, rejecting the contention raised by the petitioners / appellants. Though the prayers in all the writ petitions are slightly different from each other, in substance all of them are directed against the attempt of the respondents to grant the privilege of vending liquor to such other Co - operative Societies or Corporations. It will therefore be sufficient to refer to the facts of one case to understand the scope of the arguments.

2. In Writ Petition No. 10460 of 1996 (Writ Appeal No. 13 of 1997), the facts are as Follows:
The retail shop No. 2 in Srivilliputhur Municipal Town was sold in auction for the year 1992-93, for a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- per year and the petitioner was the successful bidder. Under the Rules, the period of licence is for three years, subject to the option to be exercised by the lessee for renewal at the end of each year at an enhanced lease amount. Thus, the petitioner was running the shop upto 31 st May, 1995. The period of lease commencing from 1st June, 1992. For the licensing year 1995-96, commencing from 1st June 1996, the shop was again put up in auction and the petitioner himself was the successful bidder for Rs. 12,06,000/- per year. At the end of the year viz., after 31st May, 1996 the petitioner did not choose to apply for renewal. Therefore under the Rules, the shop was put up in auction for the year 1996-97 and the upset price fixed at Rs. 13,86,900/-. The upset price was fixed as per the Rule at 15 per cent per annum over and above the privilege amount of Rs. 12,06,000/- for the year 1995-96. The petitioner had offered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as the privilege amount for taking the shop in auction. There were no other bidders. A second auction was conducted and there were no bidders. A third auction also was conducted on 9-7-1996 and it did not fructify. The Rules prevent the grant of privilege for any amount less than the upset price. It was under those circumstances that instructions were given to the respondents to allot the shops on nomination basis under R.3 of the Rules. Again, according the petitioners, under the Rules and the Government Orders, the upset price in respect of Co - operative Societies could be fixed by adding fifty per cent to the upset price fixed in the year 1992-93. In other words in respect of Co - operative Societies, the upset price was likely to be fixed at Rs. 2,25,000/- based on 1992-93 upset price viz. Rs. 1,50,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner / appellant is that such a procedure results in great loss to the State Exchequer and he himself was being prevented from taking the shop at a higher privilege amount.

3. The above set of facts are almost identical in respect of all other shops, with which we are concerned in all the above Writ Appeals and Writ Petition. Therefore, the prayer of the Petitioners / appellants is either to prevent the grant of such shop to Co - operative Societies or to renew the shops in their own names. Several counsel have argued the plea of the petitioners / appellants and it would be convenient to arrange the points raised by them