PETITIONER:
CHHOTU SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/09/1987
BENCH:
RAY, B.C. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, B.C. (J)
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 2200 1988 SCR (1) 303
1987 SCC (4) 533 JT 1987 (3) 661
1987 SCALE (2)653
ACT:
Permission granted by State Government for shifting
country liquor shop from the village to another-Whether
arbitrary or in breach of guidelines contained in Government
Circulars on the subject-High Court quashed the Government
order granting permission.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant Chhotu Singh, who had been granted C.L.
III licence for vending country liquor in Village Sawli,
applied for permission to shift his liquor shop from Village
Sawli to Village Narsi Chaurasta as there was very little
demand for country liquor in Sawli with a small population.
The Collector recommended the transfer of the shop of the
appellant after making due enquiries contemplated in the
guidelines laid down in the government circular dated April
27, 1984 for shifting shops. The State Government granted
the permission applied for by the appellant.
Upon the appellant's shop being shifted to Narsi
Chaurasta, the respondent No. S in the appeals, who already
had a liquor shop in Narsi Chaurasta, challenged by a Writ
Petition the permission granted by the Government to the
appellant to shift his liquor shop to Narsi Chaurasta. The
High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the order of
the Government granting permission for shifting the liquor
shop, on the ground that the said permission had been
granted without the criteria laid down in the Government
circular dated March 18,1982 being duly considered. A review
petition against the order of the High Court, allowing the
Writ Petition, was dismissed.
The appellant Chhotu Singh has moved the Court by
special leave against the orders of the High Court, allowing
the Writ Petition and dismissing the review application, and
the only question for consideration in the matter is whether
the permission granted by the State Government for shifting
the appellant's C.L. III liquor shop from Village Sawli to
Village Narsi Chaurasta is supported by the guidelines laid
down in the latest government circular dated April 27,1984,
which has superseded all the previous such circulars.
Allowing the appeals, the Court,
304
^
HELD: The Collector had recommended permission for
shifting the liquor shop of the appellant from Village Sawli
to Village Narsi Chaurasta after making due enquiries, with
regard to the shifting of the said shop, in accordance with
the guidelines contained in the latest government circular
on the subject, dated April 27, 1984, which had superseded
the guidelines in the previous such circulars. The sanction
accorded to the shifting of the appellant's shop is not in
breach of the said latest circular dated April 27, 1984 and
it cannot be assailed as arbitrary. [306G, B; 307E, B-C]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2331 32
of 1987.
From the Judgment and order dated, .4.1986 of the
Bombay High Court in Review Petition No. 837 of 1986.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant.
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, D.M. Nargolkar, A.M.
Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.C. RAY, J. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the
order dated 7th April, 1986 made by the High Court of Bombay
allowing the writ petition No. 189 of 1986 quashing the
permission granted in favour of the petitioner by the
Government by its order dated 24.12.1985 permitting the
shifting of the country liquor shop from Mouza Sawli to
Mouza Narsi Chaurasta as well as the order of the High Court
dated 17.7.1986 rejecting the review petition No. 837 of
1986. The petitioner’s father had a licence to run the
country liquor shop in village Narsi in Taluka Biloli,
District Nanded, Maharashtra. In 1983 the said licence was
transferred in the name of the petitioner (respondent No. 5
in this appeal). The appellant was granted a licence,
commonly known as C.L. III licence for vending country
liquor in village, Sawli, Taluka Biloli, District Nanded. In
November, 1984, the appellant was permitted to join one
Ataullah as his partner to run the said country liquor shop
in village Sawli. The appellant found considerable
difficulty in running the shop in village Sawli as there was
very little demand for country liquor in the said village
having small population of about 1800 and as such the
appellant sustained heavy loss. The appellant therefore
305
applied on 2.2.1985 before the District Collector, Nanded
for permission to shift his shop from village Sawli to
village Narsi Chaurasta situated within the same Taluka. The
Collector of Nanded after making necessary enquiries in
accordance with the guidelines of the circular dated
27.4.1984 regarding the shifting of the shops, recommended
the transfer of the shop of the appellant from village Sawli
to village Narsi Chaurasta. The Government of Maharashtra,
however, by order dated 25.7.1985 rejected the application
of the appellant for shifting the shop. The appellant again
made a representation against the said order of rejection.
This representation was duly considered by the Government
and permission was granted to the appellant to transfer his
country liquor shop C.L. IIl from village Sawli to village
Narsi Chaurasta. In accordance with the said permission
granted to the appellant, the appellant shifted his shop on
17.2.1986 to village Narsi Chaurasta. The respondent No. 5
who has got a country liquor shop in that village,
questioned the permission granted by the Governmment in
favour of the appellant by writ petition No. 189 of 1986 and
prayed for quashing of the said order granting permission on
the ground that there has been a violation of the circular
No. CLR. 1173(III) Gen/K dated 27th February, 1973 in as
much as the total population of the said village did not
exceed l00,000 and as such the permission for shifting the
said shop of the appellant to the village Narsi Chaurasta
was illegal and bad.
The writ petition No. 189/86 was heard by the High
Court, Bombay and it was allowed by holding that without
duly considering the criteria laid down in the circular
dated 18.3.1982 i.e. economic viability of the proposed shop
and the likely volume of consumption of country liquor, the
purported permission for shifting the shop was granted.
Accordingly, the rule was made absolute and the order
granting permission by the Government was quashed. An
application for review of the said order was filed by the
appellant and the same was rejected by order dated July 17,
1986 in Review Petition No. 837 of 1986. Aggrieved by the
said two orders the special leave petition was filed out of
which this appeal has arisen.
The only question that falls for consideration in this
appeal is whether the permission granted by the State of
Maharashtra i.e. Respondent No. 1 for shifting of C.L. IIl
liquor shop of the appellant from village Sawli to village
Narsi Chaurasta is in accordance with the guidelines laid
down by the latest circular dated 27th April, 1984 which is
annexed as annexure P-7 to this appeal. It has been urged on
behalf of respondent No. 5 by drawing the notice of the
Court to the circular
306
dated 27.2.1973 (annexure P-2) that the permission that was
accorded for shifting of the appellant’s shop from Mouza
Sawli to Mouza Narsi is in infringement of the aforesaid
circular in as much as the total population of Mouza Narsi
did not exceed l0,000 and as such no additional shop could
be permitted in the said Mouza nor any permission could be
accorded for shifting of the appellant’s liquor shop in the
said Mouza. This argument advanced on behalf of respondent
No. 5 is devoid of merit in as much as the aforesaid
circular was superseded by the guidelines laid down by the
Government as is evident from the order No. CLR
1480/1101/PRO-3 dated 2nd October, 1980 wherein it has been
stated in clauses 4 and S that permission for additional
shop can be granted only if it would be economically viable.
It is also evident from the circular dated March 18, 1982
that rules 23 and 24 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor
Rules, 1973 were amended by Government Notification dated
26th February, 1982 and guidelines have been laid down for
grant of a licence for shops for the retail sale of country
liquor. One of the guidelines to be considered is that due
consideration has to be given to the likely volume of
consumption of country liquor and economic viability of the
proposed shop before granting any permission for a new shop.
This circular was followed by another circular dated
September 16, 1983 wherein it has been mentioned that in
granting additional licences for country liquor shop, the
Collector should use the discretion and propose shops at
such places taking into consideration the likely volume of
consumption, economic viability, menace of illicit
distillation etc. This circular is annexed as annexure P-5
to the appeal. By the latest circular dated April 27, 1984
the Government in supersession of the guidelines in the
previous circulars had laid down certain guidelines of which
clause 6 is relevant for our consideration which is to the
following effect:
“Whether additional shop at the new place would be
economically feasible.”
In the instant case the District Collector of Nanded
made due enquiries in accordance with the guidelines
contained in circular dated April 27, 1984 (annexure P-7 to
this appeal) with regard to the shifting of country liquor
shop of the appellant and recommended the permission for
shifting the shop stating that the population of Mouza Narsi
is about 3738 and it is a commercial place. There is a lot
of crowd of people at this place and as such if the country
liquor shop is shifted from Mouza Sawli to Mouza Narsi the
financial condition of the licence-holder would improve
resulting in his being able to pay the licence fee and incur
the other expenses of the shop. It has been
307
further stated that the sale of country liquor at Mouza
Narsi is 1300 litres and starting of another shop at this
place is feasible. This report was forwarded to the
Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, a
copy of which is annexed as P-1 to this appeal. The
Government of Maharashtra had first rejected the application
of the appellant for the shifting of the shop on 25.7.1985
and on representation being made by the appellant had re-
considered its earlier decision and accorded sanction to the
proposal of shifting of country liquor shop of the appellant
from village Sawli to village Narsi Chaurasta, Taluka
Biloli. This order according permission cannot be assailed
as arbitraty or in breach of the latest circular issued by
the Government laying down the guidelines in 1984. The
Government duly considered the guidelines laid down in the
said circular namely the economic viability and also the
volume of consumption of liquor in the particular Mouza as
is evident from the report of the Collector, Nanded. It is
also pertinent to mention in this connection that the State
of Maharashtra, respondent No. 1 filed a return to this
appeal wherefrom it is manifest that the respondent No. 1
duly considered the report of the Collector recommending
permission to transfer the country liquor shop of the
appellant. It has also been stated in. the said counter that
the guidelines contained in the circular dated February 27,
1973 are in respect of the grant of new country liquor
licence. These guidelines cannot be made applicable in
respect of the shifting of any country liquor shop existing
already in one village to another village. It has further
been stated that after the permission was granted the
appellant shifted his country liquor shop to village Narsi
Chaurasta and he has been running the country liquor shop
there since February, 1986. The sanction accorded to the
shifting of the shop of the appellant is not in breach of
the latest circular dated April 27, 1984 annexed as P-7 to
this appeal.
For the reasons aforesaid there is no merit in the
submissions made on behalf of respondent No. S and the same
cannot be sustained. The appeals are therefore allowed. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of
Bombay dated April 7, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 189/86 as
well as the order dated July 17, 1986 made in Review
Petition No. 837/86 are quashed and set aside. There will,
however, be no orders as to costs.
S.L. Appeals allowed.
308