JUDGMENT
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
1. The petitioner is a licensee of Indian Made Foreign Liquor ‘ON’ shop in Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur for the excise year 2001-2002. He was running his shop during that year in plot No. 1696, KhataNo. 423. He wanted to shift that shop to another site, namely, plot No. 2005, Khata No. 206. He wrote a letter in that behalf to the Collector, Jajpur through Superintendent of Excise, Jajpur, a copy of that letter is marked Annexure-3, but it does not bear any date. Nor is there any allegation in the writ petition as to when exactly that application was made. But, according to the petitioner, objections thereon were invited on 27.8.2001 under Annexure-4. According to the petitioner no objection was received and the Commissioner of Excise recommended the application.
2. While matters stood thus, the excise year 2001-2002 was coming to a close. According to the petitioner, on 30.3.2002 he approached the Superintendent of Excise for renewal of his ‘ON’ licence for the year 2002-2003. He offered the entire licence fee, but the Superintendent of Excise refused to accept the licence fee, informing the petitioner that his application for renewal had been refused by the State. The petitioner has produced the order by which the application for renewal of his licence for the excise year 2002-2003 and for shifting the shop to the new site were both rejected, as Annexure-7. The petitioner challenges Annexure-7 as illegal and unsustainable. According to him , refusal to renew the licence was against the excise policy announced by the State. The reason given for refusing the shifting was also not correct, the reason given being that the proposed site for the ‘ON’ shop was within the prohibited distance of National Highway No. 5 and that the shop could not be located at that site, in view of Rule 31 of the Orissa Excise Rules. The petitioner also submits that if a decision were to be taken to refuse the renewal of his licence, he should have been heard. The petitioner refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Restaurant and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1982 SC 1550 in that behalf. The observations in the decision of Dusasan Behera v. State of Orissa and others, 1994(11) OLR 613 were also relied on. Another un-reported decision in OJC No. 2782 of 2002 by this Court is also brought to our notice.
3. Annexure-7 clearly says that the Government had decided that the licence for Indian Made Foreign Liquor ‘ON’ shop at Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur need not be renewed for the year 2002-2003. It gives a reason for the rejection of the application of the petitioner for permission to shift the shop to the proposed site as the ground of that site being very near the National Highway No. 5 and the grant of permission to run his shop therein, would violate the restriction imposed by Rule 34 of the Orissa Excise Rules.
4. It is by now well settled that no one has a fundamental right to trade in liquor. The decision of the Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is itself authority for that position, in addition to very many other decisions. Since this position was conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not think it necessary to cite the binding authorities on that question. The right to trade in liquor is retained with the Government. The Government forms out that right in terms of a policy decided upon by it. It is open to the Government to decide whether in a particular area, a licence should be granted for running a liquor shop or not. The Government has taken a decision, as can be seen from Annexure-7, that licence for I.M.F.L. ‘ON’ shop need not be issued at Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur. The decision not to grant a licence, is a decision well within the powers of the Government. The decision not to grant any licence for establishing a liquor shop in a village or a locality, is also in furtherance of the mandate of Article 47 of the Constitution of India. There is no successful challenge sought to be mounted in the writ petition against the decision of the Government not to grant any licence for I.M.F.L. ‘ON’ shop in Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur. For taking such a decision it is not necessary for the Government to hear a person whose licence had expired by the time the decision was intended to be implemented. The decision was to be effective from 1.4.2002 and the licence of the petitioner expired on 31.3.2002. What we mean to say is that there was no interference with the right of the petitioner to trade in liquor as per the licence issued to him, during the currency of that licence. What the Government decided was that from 1.4.2002, the next year, no licence for trade in Indian Made Foreign Liquor, need be issued in Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur. Since the petitioner has no fundamental right to trade in liquor and a fundamental right to a renewal of his licence, it is open to the Government to take such a decision without violating any of his rights. In the process of that decision making, the petitioner has no right to be heard. Moreover, when a Government decides that no liquor licence need be granted for a particular excise year in a particular locality or village, the petitioner is not entitled to question the same, since the petitioner cannot claim any fundamental right to trade in liquor. Since the licence of the petitioner has expired, in our view, in the policy decision now taken by the Government regarding non-grant of any licence to trade in liquor in a particular area, the petitioner has no right to be heard.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the policy announced by the Government, marked Annexure-8, there was a decision incorporated to the effect that all the existing I.M.F.L. ‘ON’ and Beer Parlours (ON) licences may be renewed, provided they have fulfilled all the conditions for the year 2002-2003 on payment of the licence fee indicated in the policy and this clothed the petitioner with a right to have a renewal of his licence. It is not as if the Government is granting a licence to any other person in preference to the petitioner, who was a licensee for the previous excise year. This was a decision by the Government not to grant any licence for the running of an I.M.F.L. ‘ON’ shop to trade in liquor in that area. The general liquor policy, in our view, does not stand in the way of the Government taking such a decision. As we have indicated, such a decision is consistent with the object sought to be achieved by Article 47 of the Constitution of India. It is also consistent with the dream of the Father of the Nation. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that he had a right to a renewal and in that context, he should have been heard.
6. The right to renewal of a licensee to trade in liquor, is not automatic. Merely because a person is a licensee for one year, he cannot insist that the licence in his favour should be renewed for the succeeding year. That will depend upon any particular decision the Government may take and the policy of the Government for the concerned year. Here, no doubt the Government generally took the view that licences can be renewed; but regarding Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur, the Government took a policy decision that No I.M.F.L. ‘ON’ shop licence need be granted. In fact a right to a renewal stands on the same footing as a fresh grant. Therefore, if the Government decides that for the concerned year, no licence need be issued in a particular area, the licensee for the previous year in that area, cannot have the right to say that he is entitled to have a renewal, whatever may be the decision regarding the locating or non-locating of a shop in that particular area or locality.
7. The application made by the petitioner for shifting was refused on the ground that the site proposed was within the prohibited distance of National Highway No. 5. The petitioner points out that neither Annexure-5 nor Annexure-6 report indicated that the site was objectionable. On the other hand, Annexure-5 report suggests that there was no violation of Rule 34 of the Orissa Excise Rules. It is in this context, that the petitioner has relied on the decision earlier referred to and contended that he should have been given an opportunity of being heard before turning down his request for shifting. The objection taken is that the shop is sought to be located near a National Highway. The shop is an ‘ON’ shop. That means, liquor will be imbibed at the premises. Can it be said that it is not a prudent decision not to locate an I.M.F.L. ‘ON’ shop near the National Highway ? It is notorious that drunken driving leads to majority of accidents on our Highway. Therefore, the decision of the Government not to allow the establishing of an I.M.F.L. ‘ON’ shop near National Highway No. 5, is a decision that must be seen as a decision in larger public interest. The personal interest if any, of the petitioner, must necessarily give way to such a public interest. Even then, if it were a mere case of a refusal of the request of the petitioner to shift his shop and a consequential denial to renew the licence to the petitioner, we would have been inclined to Interfere with the order Annexure-7 to the extent of directing the concerned authority to give a hearing to the petitioner before taking a final decision. But as we have noticed, Annexure-7 contains two distinct decisions, one, not to grant any I.M.F.I. ‘ON’ licence in Kuakhia area in the district of Jajpur and two, the decision not to permit the shifting applied for by the petitioner. The first decision not to grant a licence in that locality, as we have held, is a decision on which the petitioner cannot claim any right to be heard. Since we are satisfied that the said decision of the Government not to grant any licence for Indian Made Foreign Liquor ‘ON’ shop at Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur is not in any manner vitiated and no ground exists for interference with that decision, we do not think it necessary to direct that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of being heard regarding his application for shifting of his shop on the ground that the site proposed by him is within the prohibited distance of the National Highway and is hit by Rule 34 of the Orissa Excise Rules.
8. In that view, we are satisfied that no interference is called for with Annexure-7 decision of the Government regarding establishment of an I.M.F.L. ‘ON’ shop at Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur for the year 2002-2003. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition.
A.S. Naidu, J.
9. I agree.