Sri Murugan Agencies vs The District Collector, The Assistant Commissioner, (Excise) and The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The first respondent-Collector by proceedings dated 8.9.2000 granted licences in Form ML-2/6 with a validity upto

31.3.2001, to the petitioner. When the petitioner applied for renewal for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 to the first respondent, as the

petitioner did not fulfill the condition of storage point, the first respondent rejected his application for renewal by proceedings dated 27.8.2002,

after issuing a show cause notice dated 13.8.2002 and giving an opportunity of personal hearing on 19.8.2002.

1.2. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 27.8.2002, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent on

6.9.2002. The third respondent by proceedings dated 24.5.2003 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and the relevant portion of the

impugned order reads as follows:

.. 12. Further according to Rule 4(1) the ML-2 licence is meant for possession sale of molasses. It is, therefore, clear that the rule envisages that if

a person wants to sell Molasses he should possess it for selling. For possessing Molasses the licensee should have the storage tanks. Since the

Molasses is a controlled commodity which could be easily misused for illicit liquor purposes, the rule imposes strict conditions to that there could

be tight control and regulation preventing misuse. Unless the Molasses is properly stored there could be no proper accounting of receipt, issue and

stock of Molasses. Without any account, there could not be any effective control and regulation on the Molasses. That is why the rule itself

provides for a licence for possession and sale. If possession before sale was not considered essential in the rule itself, separate licence for sale

alone would have been provided for. In the absence of a separate provision for sale alone, it has to be reckoned that the rule does not provide for

any licence only for sale without possession. Thus the definition of ML-2 licence as provided in Rule 4(1) has to be applied for all the ML-2

licences. If the applicant does not have facilities to possess Molasses then it should be construed that he is not eligible to have ML-2 licence. ..

1.3. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the third respondent dated 24.5.2003, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for

the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent in Proc.Roc.P & E.VIII (1) 32878/02/4, dated 24.5.2003, quash the same and

consequently to direct the respondents to renew the licence in Form ML-2/6.

For the disposal of the above writ petition, it is apt to refer the licence condition No.(1) of ML-2 licence issued under Rule 7(1) of the Tamil

Nadu Molasses Control and Regulation Rules, 1958, reads thus;

The molasses licensed for possession and sale shall be stocked or stored at (address or premises).

Even though Mr. S. James, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inviting my attention to Form ML-1, contends that there is no column in

Form ML-1, which is an application for applying licence in Form ML-2, requiring to disclose the provision relating to the storage and stocking

point, I am unable to accept the above contention because the licence sought for by the petitioner in Form ML-2 requires the details regarding the

storage or stocking point.

Concededly, the petitioner was granted an opportunity even before refusal to renew the licence by the first respondent-Collector, but, the

petitioner did not avail such opportunity by furnishing the details regarding the storage point and the same is violative of the said condition.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any irregularity or arbitrary exercise of the power by the third respondent in the impugned proceedings

dated 24.5.2003. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.