AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The prayer made in the present writ petition is as under :
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing the impugned notification as per Annexure-A dated 06-10-
2016 issued by the 2nd respondent ? Excise Commissioner in No. ECI/01/MSIL/2016 and that of the 1st respondent as per Annexure-B dated
23-09- 2016 bearing No. FD 15 EFL 2015 in respect of Belagavi District.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent - State to treat licence in Form CL- 2 and licence in Form CL-11c are equally situated
retail vend of liquor licence.
c) Issue any other appropriate order or direction deems fit to be granted including direction for costs.
The matter is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos. 40079-40080/2017 decided on 1st September, 2017, with regard to issuance
of licence to Government Company - MSIL. The Court after hearing the Counsels held the following in the said judgment.
A bare perusal of the said provision indicates that the said provision with a nonobstante clause has an overriding effect and will
operate notwithstanding Rule 12 of the said Rules, 1968. Even though, no such order under Rule 12 fixing the limit, as the number of
licences passed by the Commissioner of Excise is placed on the record of the Court fixing any limit of the excise licence for the said
H.D.Pura village but that also is of no consequence. Even if such an order was to be there, because 11C licence given to the
Government Undertaking MSIL would have the preference and would operate notwithstanding such limit of Rule 12 of the 1968
Rules.
The said Government Company MSIL appears to have been granted additional 900 licences in the recent past and to procure
business, naturally, all such 900 licences have to be allotted suitable places to carry on their business. The State Government has
carved out a special provision under Rule 11C for the said Government Company overriding the usual provisions of prescribing limit
of excise licences envisaged under Rule 12 of the said Rules. There is no challenge laid to this provision of Rule 11C before this
Court. It is already said to have been upheld by this Court in B.Martin & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others [2011(3)
Kar.L.J.16]. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference:-
In view of the above legal position and also, since it is settled in various other cases that sale of liquor is neither a fundamental right
nor a question of arbitrariness which can be questioned, and also when the State intends to promote business through organized
sectors namely, the companies owned by the State, the granting of licences to the MSIL cannot be held to be arbitrary and the rule
enabling grant of some more licences in the interest of public health or general order and thereby, grant of some more CL-2 licences
through MSIL, cannot be held to be bad.
It is stated that one of the purpose of regulation is to raise revenue to the State by granting licences to the State owned companies
and while exercising monopoly or privilege, the State felt it proper to give more number of licences to the State owned company to
regulate business in liquor. Although a policy was brought in during 2003 to restrict issuance of CL-2 and CL-9 licences, however, it
shall not bar the issuance of licences in favour of the State owned companies and the business carried on by the State is to earn
revenue for the State as limited revenue would be generated in case of private CL-2 or CL-9 licence holders since the margin profit is
fixed. For the purpose of generating revenue, when the State has taken a decision to give more number of Cl-2 licences to the State
owned companies, that cannot be said either discriminatory or arbitrary and no quota could be fixed for issuance of licences to the
Government owned companies by the Commissioner of Excise and it applies only to private individuals.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear opinion that the present impugned order passed by the Respondent-
Commissioner of Excise cannot be successfully assailed by the petitioners and therefore, the present writ petitions are devoid of merit
and are liable to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Therefore, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms. No costs.