{"id":219684,"date":"2002-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002"},"modified":"2018-05-03T18:43:33","modified_gmt":"2018-05-03T13:13:33","slug":"k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 25\/09\/2002\n\nCoram\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE\nand\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\n\nW.P.  No.34090 of 2002\nand\nW.P.M.P.  No.50671 of 2002 and batch\n\nW.P.No.34090 of 2002\n\nK. Ramanathan                                          ...     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.     The State of Tamil Nadu,\n        rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n        Prohibition & Excise Department,\n        Fort St. George,\n        CHENNAI - 600 009.\n\n2.      The Commissioner (Excise),\n        Chepauk,\n        CHENNAI - 600 005.\n\n3.      The Asst. Commissioner of Excise,\n        Madurai.                                ...     Respondents\n\n        Prayer :  Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution  of  India\nfor  the  issuance  of  a  Writ  of Certiorarified Mandamus for the reasons as\nstated therein.\n\n\nFor Petitioner in W.P.M.P.     :Mr.  R.  Krishnamurthi, S.C.  for\nNos.52582 to 52584\/2002                 Mr.  V.  Ayyathurai.\n\n\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.M.P.      :Mr.  T.R.  Rajagopalan, S.C.  for\n        No.50671\/2002 in WP 34090\/      M\/s.  K.  Selvaraj\n        2002\n\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.No.               :Mr.  K.M.  Vijayan, S.C.  for\n        25184\/2002 etc.                 Mr.  J.  Pothiraj\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.  No              :Mr.  P.  Jayaraman, S.C.  for\n        26261 of 2002                   Mr.  V.  Chinnasamy\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.  No.     :Mr.  M.  Venkatachalapathy,\n        35975 to 35980 of 2002 etc.     SC.,    for Mr.  K.  Kumaresh\n                                                Babu\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.M.P.      :Mr.  AR.  L.  Sundaresan\n        54378\/2002 in W.P.  No.\n        28678 of 2002\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.M.P.  No. :Mr.  Venkatasubramaniam for\n        52319 of 2002                   M\/s.V.  Sanjeevi\n\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.No.               :Mr.  A.  Sivaji\n        29676 etc.  Batch\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.M.P.      :Mr.  M.M.  Sundaresh\n        No.52650 of 2002 etc.\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.M.P.      :Mr.  D.  Selvaraj\n        No.53098\/2002 etc.  batch\n\n        For Petitioner in W.P.M.P.      :Mr.  M.  Muthappan\n        No.50801\/2002\n\n\nFor Respondents in all the     :Mr.  N.R.  Chandran,\n        W.P.M.Ps and W.Ps.              Advocate General assisted by\n                                                Mr.  K.  Mahedran, Spl.  G.P.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
        This batch of writ petitions and  miscellaneous  petitions  relate  to
\nlicensing of the retail vending of IMFL governed by the Tamil Nadu Prohibition
\nAct,  1937 and the Rules framed thereunder titled as Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail
\nVending) Rules, 1989, as amended from time to time.  During the excise year of
\n2001 a policy was evolved by the Government of Tamil Nadu to grant licences to
\nvend IMFL in retail for a block period of 3 years with increase as  determined
\nin  the  2nd  and  3rd  years  over the privilege amount fixed for the initial
\nperiod of one year.  The  said  policy  of  block  period  was  sought  to  be
\ndiscontinued  by  the Government by re-categorisation of the places of licence
\nfor the purpose of levy of privilege fee and also increase in shops from  6000
\nto 7000  by issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.128, 129 and 130 dated 8th July 2002.  This
\nled to filing of a batch of writ petitions of more than 4000 and they were all
\nheard and disposed by a common Judgment dated 24.07.2  002  to  the  following
\neffect:\n<\/p>\n
        “Para-22 :  We dispose of all the writ petitions as mentioned infra:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  The  Government  is at liberty to go ahead with the grant of privilege of
\nretail vending of Indian Made  Foreign  Liquor  to  the  extent  of  7,000  as
\ndecided.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  But  the  Government  shall adhere to the places of retail vending which
\nhave been licenced for the excise year 2001-2002 and held by  the  petitioners
\nand renew the licence of the petitioners for the excise year 2002 -2003 on the
\npetitioners’  remittance  of  the  privilege amount on the basis of the amount
\nfixed in G.O.Ms.No.129, dated  8.7.2002  and  also  taking  into  account  the
\nre-categorisation  of  the  shops  for  the  purpose  of levy of the privilege
\namount.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The above facility of renewal to the petitioners shall be made available
\nif the petitioners remit the requisite amounts on or before 31st of July 2002.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) For any reason, there is a delay in renewal,  the  petitioners  shall  be
\nentitled  to  vend  the Indian Made Foreign Liquor in retail on payment of the
\nproportionate privilege amount till the grant of licence.\n<\/p>\n
(v) The Government, the Commissioner and all the District Collectors shall  be
\nentitled  to  re-locate  the  shops  out  of  7,000,  at  the places they feel
\nexpedient, but only after safeguarding the shops which are being  run  by  the
\npetitioners.”\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The State Government had assailed this Judgment before the Supreme
\nCourt and  S.L.Ps.  were finally disposed of on 26.08.2002 upholding the above
\nJudgment of this Court regarding the right of  renewal  of  licences  treating
\n2001 –  2004  as  a  block period.  There had been no stay of operation of the
\nJudgment of this Court pending disposal of the 5  S.L.Ps.,  which  were  filed
\nagainst  5  of  the existing licensees, who were parties to the above Judgment
\nrendered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  This fresh litigation has cropped up because of the stand  of  the
\nGovernment  that  among  the  writ  petitioners  only  286  have  complied the
\ncondition of deposit of the privilege amount by 31.7.2002 and that the rest of
\nthe shops are liable to be given to fresh applicants by drawal of lots.    The
\npetitioners  would  maintain that they were ready and willing to perform their
\npart of the obligation and in fact were permitted to perform their obligations
\nonly partially, as the State Government was waiting for  the  verdict  of  the
\nSupreme  Court  with  a  strategy to discontinue the temporary licence in case
\nthey win the matter in the Supreme Court or to comply  with  the  Judgment  of
\nthis Court, in the event of their losing S.L.Ps.  The State Government refutes
\nthis  obligation stating that there was default on the part of the petitioners
\nin compliance of the Judgment of this Court and that only 286 are entitled for
\nrenewal of licences and not the rest.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  When the matters came up first before us, the  Government  took  a
\nstand  that  as  the Supreme Court disposed of the S.L.Ps., this Court was not
\nhaving jurisdiction to adjudicate on  the  issue.    But,  on  behalf  of  the
\npetitioners  it  was  submitted  that  the matter was moved before the Supreme
\nCourt and on the adjourned date the order dated 9.9.2002 passed by the Supreme
\nCourt was produced befo re us and the same reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
” The High Court, in the Judgment under challenge before us, made  it  crystal
\nclear that the facility of renewal to the petitioners shall be made available,
\nif  the  petitioners  remit the requisite amounts on or before 31st July, 2002
\nand the said direction has been repeated by us in our Judgment.    It  is  not
\npossible  for  us to examine the assertions made by these applicants that they
\nhave submitted the fees for the whole year though only part of  the  fees  was
\naccepted.   This  matter,  which if proved, before the High Court, can be gone
\ninto by the High Court and appropriate directions can be issued.  Thus, we see
\nno justification for this Court to extend the time or modify our order.”\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Among the petitioners, there are two types of claims  relating  to
\nmode  of  compliance  of  the conditions of deposit of the privilege amount by
\n31.07.2002.  Some  say  that  they  were  ready  to  pay  the  money  but  the
\nappropriate authorities did not issue the challan on the ground that there was
\nno  such  instructions from the Government to receive the full privilege, some
\nhave shown the Demand Drafts on the ground  that  they  were  ready  with  the
\nDemand  Drafts  but  their plea was not entertained by the authorities for the
\nsame reason mentioned above.    But,  the  common  ground  taken  by  all  the
\npetitioners is that the Government itself was unwilling to receive the amounts
\nin  full  awaiting  the  Judgment  of the Supreme Court and to proceed further
\nbasing upon the verdict of the Apex Court.  From reading the order of the Apex
\nCourt, it is  clear  that  we  are  enjoined  to  decide  as  to  whether  the
\npetitioners  were  ready  to  pay  the  privilege amount by 31.7.2002, but the
\nGovernment was not prepared to receive the same  in  full.    The  renewal  of
\nlicence or otherwise depends upon the said decision.  As the matter relates to
\nmore  than  4,000 cases, it is practically impossible to make casewise enquiry
\nto decide on the different contentions raised by the petitioners.  But we made
\nenquiry to  the  extent  possible  and  even  getting  information  by  posing
\ninterrogatories,   upon   which   affidavits   have   been   filed   answering
\ninterrogatories and also material papers.  We scanned through the same.    Out
\nof  6,000  shops  notified  for  the excise year 2001 – 2002, only 5,512 shops
\ncould be sold out by drawal of lots.  Out of  the  same,  1,830  persons  have
\navailed  of  the  order  dated  16th  July 2002 of the learned single Judge by
\nremitting three months rental for the excise year 2002 – 2003.    Pursuant  to
\nthe  instructions  of  the Commissioner dated 25.7.2002, 286 applications were
\nmade.  4,632 applications  were  made  pursuant  to  G.O.    Ms.No.176,  dated
\n30.7.2002 and consequent instructions of the Commissioner on 30.7.2002.  It is
\npertinent to mention that this number of 4,632 includes 1,830 who had remitted
\nthree months rental as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
6.      The   argument   on  behalf  of  the  petitioners  was  led  by  Mr.R.
\nKrishnamurthi, learned senior  counsel.    M\/s.T.R.    Rajagopalan  and   K.M.
\nVijayan, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, as also
\nother learned counsel made  their  submissions.   Mr.  N.R.  Chandran, learned
\nAdvocate General, appeared for the  State.    M\/s.    P.    Jayaraman  and  M.
\nVenkatachalapathy, the learned senior counsel appeared for some of the drawees
\nof  the  lots on 2nd and 9th September 2002 and supported the arguments of the
\nlearned Advocate General.\n<\/p>\n
7.      While  the  learned  Advocate  General  submits  that  there  had been
\ncompliance of the Condition No.3 by only 286  of  the  writ  petitioners,  the
\nargument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is otherwise.  The learned
\nAdvocate  General  heavily relies upon the instructions of the Commissioner of
\nProhibition and Excise contained in Roc.    P&E  IX(1  )\/16131\/2002-15,  dated
\n25.7.2002 so as to project the point that the Government had never intended to
\nstall  the  attempt  of  the  petitioners  to pay the privilege amount seeking
\nrenewal in accordance with the judgment of this Court.    The  said  executive
\ninstructions  were issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to all
\nthe  District  Collectors  with  a  further  direction   to   give   necessary
\ninstructions to  the  concerned  Deputy\/Assistant Commissioners of Excise.  We
\nfeel it apt to extract the same.\n<\/p>\n
“Office of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,
\nChepauk, Chennai – 5.\n<\/p>\n
To
\nALL COLLECTORS<\/p>\n
Roc.No.P&E.IX(1)16131\/2002-15   Date:  25.7.2002<\/p>\n
        In continuation of the instructions  issued  in  regard  to  grant  of
\nprivilege  for  retail  vending of IMFL for the year 2002-2003, it is informed
\nthat in its order in Writ  Appeal  No.2209\/2002,  dated  24.7.2002,  the  High
\nCourt, Madras, has issued certain orders\/directions:\n<\/p>\n
        2.      In  view  of  the  above  orders\/directions of the High Court,
\nMadras, the applications for renewal of IMFL retail vending licences  for  the
\nyear  2002-2003 have to be accepted from the Writ Petitioners with the revised
\nprivilege amount fixed in G.O.Ms.No.129, P&E(VI), dated 8.7 .2002, taking into
\naccount the re-categorisation  of  shops  for  purpose  of  revised  privilege
\namount.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      Therefore, renewal applications from the Writ Petitioners with
\nthe copy of the High Court’s order along with the Demand Draft for the revised
\nprivilege amount for one year as fixed in G.O.No.129, P&E(VI), dt.8.7.2002 may
\nbe accepted till 5.45 p.m.  on 31.7.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The  list of Writ Petitioners, whose licences are entitled for
\nrenewal, is sent to you through E-Mail.  It contains names of 3,505 licensees.
\nEntertain renewal  applications  from  those  petitioners  relevant  for  your
\nDistrict from the list.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      As regards receipt of applications for lot, there is no change
\nin the instructions issued earlier in this office Fax Message Dated 17.7.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      Instructions regarding scrutiny of applications, drawal of lot
\netc.  will be issued separately.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      The   Deputy   \/   Assistant  Commissioners  (Excise)  may  be
\ninstructed to await further  instructions  from  this  office  for  proceeding
\nfurther  after  receipt  of  applications  both  for  renewal  and  for  fresh
\nallotment.\n<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER (P & E)”\n<\/p>\n
According to the learned Advocate General, only 286 petitioners  responded  to
\nthe  said  instructions  and  only  such  persons  are entitled for renewal of
\nlicence and not others.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly rely upon  G.O.
\nMs.No.176  P & E (VI) Department, dated 30.7.2002 issued by the Government and
\nthe consequential instructions issued by the Commissioner of  Prohibition  and
\nExcise in Roc.    P&E  IX  (1)\/16131\/2002-18,  dated  30.7.200  2.   These two
\nproceedings also need extraction and they are as below.<\/p>\n
\n\"PROHIBITION AND EXCISE (VI) DEPARTMENT\n\nG.O.  (Ms.) No.176                              Dated:  30.7.2002.\n\nRead:\n\n<\/pre>\n
1.  G.O.  (Ms.) No.115, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 22.6.2001.\n<\/p>\n
2.  G.O.  (Ms.) No.128, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 8.7.20 02\n<\/p>\n
3.  G.O.  (Ms.)No.129, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 8.7.200 2.\n<\/p>\n
4.  G.O.  (Ms.).No.130, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 8.7.20 02.\n<\/p>\n
ORDER:\n<\/p>\n
        In  the  Government  Order  second  read  above,  orders  were  issued
\nproviding for the grant of licences for 7000 Indian Made Foreign Liquor retail
\nvending shops for the excise year 2002-2003 following the procedure prescribed
\nin Government  Order  first  read  above  by lot system.  Some of the existing
\nlicensees filed batch of writ  petitions  before  the  High  Court  of  Madras
\nquestioning the  deletion  of  the renewal clause.  The High Court disposed of
\nthe batch of writ petitions with directions to renew the licences of the  writ
\npetitioners  subject  to  their  remitting the enhanced privilege amount on or
\nbefore 31.7.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The State Government have filed Special Leave Petition  before
\nthe Supreme Court of India challenging the orders of the High Court.  The said
\npetition is  to  be heard on 9.8.2002.  Meanwhile, based on the statement made
\non behalf of the State Government before the  Supreme  Court,  the  Government
\nhave  decided to extend the period of the existing licences for 15 days beyond
\n31.7.2002 in favour of licensees who desire such  extension  on  their  paying
\nproportionate privilege  amount  and  other  fees.   The Government therefore,
\ndirect that the licences of willing licensees be extended for a period  of  15
\ndays beyond 31.7.200 2.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      In  the  circumstances,  the  Commissioner  of Prohibition and
\nExcise is requested to issue directions to the various  licensing  authorities
\nto  extend the licences of all licensees who desire such extension for 15 days
\nnamely upto 15.8.2002 subject to payment of the proportionate privilege amount
\nand proportionate licence fee for 15 days besides  the  necessary  application
\nfee.\n<\/p>\n
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)<\/p>\n
R.  BALAKRISHNAN
\nSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
\nTo
\nThe Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chennai- 5.”\n<\/p>\n
“OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE
\nCHEPAUK, CHENNAI – 5.\n<\/p>\n
Roc.No.P &E IX (1) 16131\/2002-18        dated 30-7-2002\n\nTO\nALL COLLECTORS\n<\/pre>\n
———————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
        The Government in  G.O.  Ms.No.176 P & E (VI) Dept.  dated 30-7-2002 (
\ncopy sent to you by E-mail separately) have decided  to  extend  the  existing
\nIMFL  retail  vending  licences for fifteen days beyond 31.7.2002 in favour of
\nlicensees who desire such extension  on  payment  of  proportionate  privilege
\namount  and  other fees and directed that the licences of willing licensees be
\nextended for a period of fifteen (15) days beyond 31.7.2002.   Therefore,  the
\nIMFL  retail  vending  licences of the willing licensees may be extended for a
\nperiod of 15 days upto 15.8.2 002.\n<\/p>\n
        In this connection, the procedure laid down below should be followed:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Application in the Form appended to this fax message has to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Application fee of Rs.500\/- may be collected in full\n<\/p>\n
3.  Proportionate privilege amount for 15 days at the revised  rate  fixed  in
\nG.O.Ms.No.129 P & E (VI) Department, dated 8.7.2002 shall be collected.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Proportionate licence fee for fifteen days (15 days) shall be collected.\n<\/p>\n
As  the  period  of  licence  for  the  year 2001 – 2002 expires on 31.7.200 2
\nexpeditious action should be taken for the extension of time in respect of the
\nlicences of the willing licensees.  All those willing licensees who apply  and
\nremit  the  proportionate  privilege  amount and licence fee should be granted
\nextension for 15 days without fail.\n<\/p>\n
        The  Deputy  \/  Assistant  Commissioner  (Excise)  may   be   suitably
\ninstructed.\n<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER ( P & E)”\n<\/p>\n
        9.      The  plea  of  the  petitioners  and  the  counter plea of the
\nGovernment rest on the analysis of the above three proceedings.  While  it  is
\nclear  from  the  proceedings dated 25.7.2002 that the judgment of this Court,
\nrendered a  day  earlier,  was  directed  to  be  followed  by  accepting  the
\napplications  and  also  the  remittance  of  the privilege amount but only on
\naccompaniment of the certified copy and the demand draft, the  effect  of  the
\nsame  has  to  be  read  along with the later proceedings dated 30.7.2002, one
\nGovernmental and the other, which is consequential,  by  the  Commissioner  of
\nProhibition.  The  reason  is  obvious.    By  the  time the proceedings dated
\n25.7.2002 was issued by the Commissioner, there was no definite decision taken
\nby the Government to file appeals before the  Supreme  Court.    That  is  the
\nreason  why  the  Commissioner  had  only  authorized  the concerned Licensing
\nAuthorities to receive the applications with requisite amounts payable but not
\nto process the same or take a decision.  That is ex facie clear from clauses 6
\nand 7 of the instructions of the  Commissioner  dated  25.7.2002.    Then  the
\nGovernment  has  taken a decision to move the Supreme Court and the matter was
\nmentioned before the Supreme Court on 30.7.2002 but no stay was granted and it
\nwas posted to 9.8.2002.  Then the Government, suo motu by G.O.  Ms.    No.176,
\ndated  30.7.2002,  has  directed the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to
\ninstruct the Licensing Authorities to  extend  the  existing  licenses  for  a
\nperiod of  15  days  i.e.    upto  15.8  .2002, subject to licensees, desiring
\nextension, paying the proportionate privilege amount and proportionate licence
\nfee for 15 days besides the necessary application fee.  In compliance  of  the
\nsame,  the  Commissioner has issued the necessary instructions dated 30.7.2002
\nto all the District Collectors to in turn issue instructions to the  Licensing
\nAuthorities to take expeditious action for extension of time in respect of the
\nwilling  existing  licensees,  who apply and remit the proportionate privilege
\namount and licence fee by 31.7.2002.  Pursuant to the same,  several  existing
\nlicensees  have sought for the renewal of licenses with requisite applications
\nwith fees, proportionate privilege fee and licence fee for the  period  of  15
\ndays.   On  being  satisfied  about  the  compliance of the conditions, such a
\nnumber of existing licensees  (4,632)  were  granted  with  extension  of  the
\nlicence  for  a  period  of 15 days, then for a further period of 15 days from
\n16.8.2002 to 31.8.2002 by G.O.  Ms.No.180, dated 12.8.2002  and  again,  as  a
\nthird extension  of  15  days,  from 1.9.2002 to 15.9.2002 by G.O.  Ms.No.189,
\ndated 29.8.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     Among the applicants, there are two types,  i.e.    the  fresh
\none, who had  applied pursuant to the impugned G.O.  Ms.  Nos.128, 129 and 130
\n, dated 8.7.2002, and the other is among  the  existing  licensees.    1,8  30
\napplications  which  have  been  received pursuant to the order of the learned
\nsingle Judge dated 16.7.2002 have not been processed at all and they were just
\nkept pending obviously awaiting the outcome of judgment of the Division Bench.
\nEven with regard to 286 applicants, who are said to have remitted  the  entire
\namount  pursuant  to  the instructions of the Commissioner dated 25.7.2002, no
\norders were  passed  on  their   applications   until   2.9.2002.      It   is
\nununderstandable  as  to  why  the Government did not pass orders on those 286
\napplicants by 31.7.2002 if really the Government was of the view that only 286
\napplicants deserved consideration in the light of the judgment of the Division
\nBench of this Court  dated  24.7.2002.    Even  while  keeping  the  said  286
\napplications  pending, the Licensing Authorities had received the applications
\nwith fees payable thereon as also the proportionate privilege fee and  licence
\nfee  for  15  days upto the closing time of 31.7.2002 and granted extension to
\n4,632 applicants among the existing licensees.  This shows the clear intention
\nof the Government that it did not want to renew  the  licences  for  the  full
\nexcise  period  2002  –  2003 because of the pendency of the matter before the
\nSupreme Court and it wanted to act suitably only after hearing the verdict  of
\nthe Supreme  Court.    In fact, the same is quite evident from the recitals of
\nG.O.  Ms.  No.189, dated 29.8.2002.<\/p>\n
\n\"PROHIBITION AND EXCISE (VI) DEPARTMENT\n\nG.O.  (Ms.) No.189                              Dated:  29.8.2002.\n\nRead:\n\n<\/pre>\n
1.  G.O.  (Ms.) No.115, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 22.6.2001.\n<\/p>\n
2.  G.O.  (Ms.) No.128, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 8.7.20 02\n<\/p>\n
3.  G.O.  (Ms.) No.129, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 8.7.20 02.\n<\/p>\n
4.  G.O.  (Ms.) No.130, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 8.7.20 02.\n<\/p>\n
5.      G.O.  (Ms.) No.176, Prohibition and Excise  Department,  dated  30.7.2\n<\/p>\n
002.\n<\/p>\n
6.      G.O.   (Ms.)  No.180,  Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 12.8.2\n<\/p>\n
002.
\nRead also:\n<\/p>\n
7.      From the Supreme Court of India final judgment dated 26.8.2002 in  SLP
\nNo.14735 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
ORDER:\n<\/p>\n
                The  Supreme  Court  of India in its judgment dated 26.8.2002,
\nseventh read  above  has  dismissed  the  Special  Leave  Petition.    Pending
\nimplementation  of  the judgment of the Supreme Court of India, the Government
\nhave decided that the  licences  of  willing  licensees  whose  licences  have
\nextended for two spells, namely, from 1.8.2002 to 15.8.2002 and from 16.8.2002
\nand 31.8.2002 may be extended for a further period from 1.9.2002 to 15.9.2002.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Accordingly  the Government direct the Commissioner of Prohibition and
\nExcise to issue directions to the various licensing authorities to extend  the
\nlicences of all licensees who desire such extension for a further period of 15
\ndays  from  1.9.2002 to 15.9.2002, subject to the payment of the proportionate
\nprivilege amount and proportionate licence fee for the period so extended.\n<\/p>\n
BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR
\nR.  BALAKRISHNAN
\nSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT”\n<\/p>\n
        11.     In view of the above discussion, the  irresistible  conclusion
\nis  that  the Government was not willing to renew the licences of the existing
\nlicencees until the decision is  given  by  the  Supreme  Court.    By  giving
\nextensions in  three  spells of 15 days each in G.O.  Ms.Nos.176, 180 and 189,
\ndated 30.7.2002, 12.8.2002 and 29.8.2002 respectively, the Government made  it
\nclear that it was re sorting to clause 4 of the judgment of the Division Bench
\ndated 24.7.2002.  The Government cannot be permitted to say that it can resort
\nto  have  the  relief  in  clause 4 mentioned above annulling the right of the
\npetitioners, in fact a substantive one, granted in clause 3 of the judgment of
\nthis Court dated 24.7.2002.  It is the Government which  had  prevented  4,632
\napplicants  from  remitting  the whole of the licence fee and privilege amount
\nand as such is obliged to receive the balance of the  privilege  amount  after
\ngiving  credit  to  the  rental  paid for 45 days as also the rentals from the
\nexisting licensees which have been deposited for a period of 3 months pursuant
\nto the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.7.2002 because we  are  told
\nat  the Bar that the Government had refunded the said three months rental only
\nto some of the applicants and not to all.\n<\/p>\n
        In result, we hold\n<\/p>\n
1.  that the 4,632 applicants, who had filed applications with fee thereon and
\npaid proportionate privilege amount  and  proportionate  licence  fee  by  the
\nclosing  date of 31.7.2002 shall be entitled to remit the balance amount after
\nmaking the adjustments as mentioned above by 30 .9.2002 (upto 5.45 p.m.);\n<\/p>\n
2.  in order to avoid controversy, we direct the above applicants to remit the
\namount by demand draft;\n<\/p>\n
3.  on compliance of  the  above  condition,  the  said  applicants  shall  be
\nentitled for the renewal of licences;\n<\/p>\n
4.   on  failure to do so, the Government shall be at liberty to deal with the
\ndefaulting shops, as it deems fit; and\n<\/p>\n
5.  it is needless to mention that  other  shops  not  covered  by  the  above
\nclauses shall be dealt with by the Government as it deems fit.
\nAll the W.Ps.  and W.P.M.Ps.  are disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
(B.S.R., CJ) (D.M., J)
\nsm\/bh
\n25.09.2002
\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 25\/09\/2002 Coram THE HON’BLE MR.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN W.P. No.34090 of 2002 and W.P.M.P. No.50671 of 2002 and batch W.P.No.34090 of 2002 K. Ramanathan … Petitioner […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-03T13:13:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-03T13:13:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3516,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002\",\"name\":\"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-03T13:13:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-03T13:13:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-03T13:13:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002"},"wordCount":3516,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002","name":"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-03T13:13:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Ramanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219684","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219684"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219684\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}