Binesh Kumar & Others vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Since the issue raised in all the aforesaid writ petitions is common and identical, therefore, all these writ petitions are heard together and decided by

this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No.2809 of 2018 are being referred in this judgment.

All the petitioners before this Court are retail dealers of country liquors in Haridwar. They are aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by

Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand.

Admittedly, there are four distilleries in the State of Uttarakhand. These distilleries are â€" (A) Doon Valley Distillery at Dehradun, (B) Rai

Bahadur Narayan Distillery at Laksar, District Haridwar, (C) I.G.L. Distillery at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and (D) Bazpur Distillery,

Bazpur at District Udham Singh Nagar. All these distilleries, inter alia, manufacture country liquor. In order to protect the sale of country liquor in the

State of Uttarakhand, the Government has framed a Policy, dated 19.03.2018, wherein it was provided in Clause 41, that country liquor shall not be

allowed to be imported from other States, and to ensure smooth supply of country liquor, the manufacturers of country liquor can be allotted areas in

the State of Uttarakhand. While referring to this particular provision in the Policy, the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure No. 6 to Writ

Petition (M/S) No. 2809 of 2018) has been passed, by which it has been directed that for the four distilleries i.e. Doon Valley Distillery at Dehradun,

Rai Bahadur Narayan Distillery at Laksar, District Haridwar, I.G.L. Distillery at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and Bazpur Distillery, Bazpur

at District Udham Singh Nagar, a particular quota of country liquor is reserved in District Dehradun, Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar and Nainital

respectively.

Consequently, 2.16 lakh bulk litre of country liquor is reserved for Doon Valley Distillery at Dehradun, and an equal quantity of 2.16 lakh bulk litre

of country liquor for other three remaining distilleries at Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar and Nainital respectively.

We are presently dealing with the retailers of District Haridwar alone. These are the retailers forced to lift the country liquor manufactured by Rai

Bahadur Narayan Distillery, Laksar, Haridwar.

The fall out of the order dated 28.08.2018 would be that in district Haridwar each retailer has to compulsorily lift 50% of country liquor from Rai

Bahadur Narayan Distillery. In other words, according to the petitioners, by the impugned order, the Government has forced the retailers to sell 50%

of their total sale of a particular brand of country liquor.

Another argument of the petitioners is that they are being forced to lift the country liquor of Rai Bahadur Narayan Distillery, although there is no

demand of this particular brand in the market. Consequently they are being put to great financial loss and business harassment. In any case, the case

of the petitioners would be that the impugned order directing the petitioners to lift 50% of the quota of a particular distillery is clearly violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Undoubtedly, no one has got a fundamental right to trade in liquor, but nevertheless it would not mean that the retailers who have been given the

licence by the Government Order should be compelled to sell a particular brand of a particular distillery. The Government has to be just and fair in its

dealings. This order on the face of it is unfair and against the retailers.

The contention of the learned State Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the private respondent is that the order dated 28.08.2018 has been

passed in view of the Policy of the Government as is contained in Rule 41, where such allotment and reservation can be made. Moreover, the learned

State Counsel Mr. Pankaj Purohit would also argue that this has been done to ensure that the money received by the Rai Bahadur Narayan Distillery

from selling of the country liquor has to be given to the sugarcane growers.

Firstly the policy as contained in Rule 41, does not contemplate a contingency as has been directed in the order dated 28.08.2018. Apparently, Rule

41 only visualizes that areas can be reserved in order to ensure easy supply of country liquor. In this case, the ground given by the State for passing

such an order is that this has been done only to save the extra cost of transport for the distilleries. This can never be a reason for passing such an

order. The order dated 28.08.2018 is patently illegal.

11.In view of the above, writ petitions are allowed. Order dated 28.08.2018 and other consequential orders are hereby set aside.