{"id":87337,"date":"2005-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005"},"modified":"2018-02-08T07:47:04","modified_gmt":"2018-02-08T02:17:04","slug":"ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3279 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nAshok Lanka & Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRishi Dixit & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
I.A. NOS. 1 & 2 <\/span>
\nIN &<\/p>\n
[Arising out of SLP (Civil).of 2005 (CC No.4529]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tW I T H<\/p>\n
     CIVIL APPEAL NO.                      OF 2005
\n[Arising out of SLP.(Civil) . of 2005 (CC 4569)]<\/p>\n
   I.A. NO. 1 IN & C.A. NO                  OF 2005
\n              [Arising out of  SLP (Civil) …\/2005 (CC No.4571)]<\/p>\n
             IA No.1  IN  &  C.A. No.\t           OF 2005
\n    [Arising out of SLP (Civil) \/2005 (CC No.4579)]<\/p>\n
\t\tIA No. 1 IN &  C.A. NO.\t    \t\tOF 2005
\n               [Arising out  SLP  (Civil)  \/2005 (CC No.4598)]<\/p>\n
       C.A. NO.\t\t\t\tOF 2005
\n\t                [Arising out SLP (Civil) No. 7802 of  2005] <\/p>\n
\t\t\tC.A. NO.\t\t\t\tOF 2005
\n               [Arising out of SLP (Civil)  No.8575 of 2005]<\/p>\n
\t      IA. NOS. 1 & 2 IN & C.A. NO.\t\t\tOF 2005
\n                [Arising out of  SLP (Civil)…\/2005 (CC No.5051)]<\/p>\n
C.A. NO.\t\t\t\tOF 2005
\n\t               [Arising out of  SLP(Civil) No.10422 of 2005]<\/p>\n
\t\t\tC.A  NO.\t\t\t\tOF 2005
\n    [Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No.10457 of 2005]<\/p>\n
\t\t\tC.A. NO.\t\t\t\tOF 2005
\n                         [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.10652 of  2005] <\/p>\n
C.A. NO.\t\t\t\tOF 2005
\n                        [Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No. 10653 of 2005]<\/p>\n
\t\t       \tIA NO. 1 IN & C.A.\t\tOF 2005
\n[Arising out of SLP (Civil)\/2005 (CC No.5432)]<\/p>\n
\t\tIA NO.1 IN & C.A.\t\tOF 2005
\n\t\t[Arising out of  SLP (Civil)…\/2005 (CC No.5433)]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
\tPermission to file special leave petitions is granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted in all the special leave petitions.\n<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION <\/p>\n
\tThe trade in country\/foreign liquor is said to be res extra
\ncommercium.  A citizen does not have any fundamental right to deal
\ntherewith.  The State alone has the exclusive privilege to deal in liquor from
\nmanufacture to distribution and from sale to consumption.  It is for the State
\nto part with its exclusive privilege for a price which is loosely called as
\n‘excise duty’.  The power of the State to control and regulate the trade in
\nliquor is envisaged under Entry 8,  List II of the Seventh Schedule of the
\nConstitution of India.  It may also impose excise duty as also countervailing
\nduty in exercise of its legislative power under Entry 51, List 2 of the Seventh
\nSchedule of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
ACT AND THE RULES  :\n<\/p>\n
 \tTrade in Country\/Foreign Liquor is governed by the Chhattisgarh
\nExcise Act, 1915 (‘the Act’, for short).\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 7(e)  of the Act provides that the State Government may, by
\nnotification, for the whole or for any specified part of the State, delegate to
\nthe Chief Revenue authority or the Excise Commissioner all or any of its
\npowers under the said Act except the power conferred by Section 62 to make
\nrules.\n<\/p>\n
Section 62 of  the Act empowers the State to frame rules for the
\npurpose of carrying out the provisions thereof. Without prejudice to the
\ngenerality of the said provisions, the State Government, inter alia, however,
\nmay make rules :\n<\/p>\n
(e) \tregulating the periods and localities for which, and
\nthe persons or classes of persons to whom, licences
\nfor the wholesale or retail vend of any intoxicant
\nmay be granted, and regulating the number of such
\nlicences which may be granted in any local area;\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tprescribing the procedure to be followed and the
\nmatters to be ascertained before any licence for
\nsuch vend is granted for any locality;\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tregulating the amount, time, place and manner of
\npayment of any duty or fee or tax or penalty;\n<\/p>\n
(h)\tprescribing the authority by, the form in which,
\nand terms and conditions on and subject to which
\nany licence, permit or pass shall be granted, any by
\nsuch rules, among other matters <\/p>\n
(i)\tfix the period for which any licence, permit
\nor pass shall continue in force,<\/p>\n
(ii)\tprescribe the scale of  fees or the manner of
\nfixing the fees payable in respect of any
\nsuch licence, permit or pass.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tprescribe the amount of security to be
\ndeposited by holders of any licence, permit
\nor pass for the performance of the conditions
\nof the same,<\/p>\n
(iv)\tprescribe the accounts to be maintained and
\nthe returns to be submitted by licence-\n<\/p>\n
holders, and<\/p>\n
(v)\tprohibit or regulate the partnership in, or the
\ntransfer of, licenses.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 63 of the Act provides that all rules made and notifications
\nissued thereunder shall be published in the Official Gazette, and shall have
\neffect from the date of such publication or from such other date as may be
\nspecified in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn or about 15.3.2002, the State Government in exercise of its
\naforementioned power made rules known as ‘Chhattisgarh Excise Settlement
\nof Licences for Retail Sale of Country\/Foreign Liquor Rules, 2002’ (‘the
\nRules’, for short).  “Excise Year” has been defined in the Rules to mean the
\nfinancial year commencing from 1st April to 31st March of the calendar year.
\nRule 4 provides for formation of groups of liquor shops; clause (iii) whereof
\nprohibits an applicant\/firm\/company from obtaining licences for more than
\ntwo groups of shops.  Rule 5 provides for the period of licence which would
\nbe for an excise year or part thereof.  Rule 8 provides for procedure for grant
\nof licence, which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“Procedure for grant of licence <\/p>\n
(a)\tWhenever a new licence is proposed to be granted
\nin an area or locality, the licensing authority shall
\ninvite the applications for this purpose after giving
\nwide publicity through daily newspapers having
\ncirculation in that area.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tA list of shops of country\/foreign liquor for which
\nthe licensing authority proposes to grant licence
\nshall be exhibited along with shopwise licence fee
\nminimum monthwise guaranteed quantity, security
\namount, and annual quantity in office of Collector,
\nTehsil, District Excise Officer\/Asstt.
\nCommissioner excise and Deputy Commissioner
\nExcise (Flying squad)<\/p>\n
(c)\tApplication for grant of license with application
\nfee shall be submitted in the prescribed form as
\nappended to these rules as annexure-4.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tThe last date to be fixed for the receipt of
\napplication shall not be earlier than ten days with
\neffect from the date of publication of the
\nadvertisement in the newspapers.”\n<\/p>\n
\tEligibility conditions for applicant are laid down in Rule 9 which read
\nas follows :\n<\/p>\n
“Eligibility conditions for applicant.  The applicant has
\nto fulfil the following conditions for obtaining the licence
\nfor shop\/Group of shops of Country\/foreign liquor.\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tShould be a citizen of India or a partnership firm
\nwhose partners are citizens of India.  No change  in
\npartnership shall be allowed after settlement of
\nshop(s) \/group of shops except with the permission
\nof the Excise Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(b)\tShould be above 21 years of age.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tShould not be a defaulter\/blacklisted or debarred
\nfrom holding an excise licence under the
\nprovisions of any rules made under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tHas to submit an affidavit duly verified by public
\nnotary as proof of the following namely  :\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tThat he possesses or has an arrangement for
\ntaking on rent suitable premises in that
\nlocality for opening the shops in accordance
\nwith the rules.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThat he possesses good moral character and
\nhave no criminal background and have not
\nbeen convicted of any offence punishable
\nunder the Act or Narcotic Drugs And
\nPsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or any
\nother law for the time being in force or any
\nother cognizable and non-bailable offence.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tThat in case he is selected as licensee he will
\nfurnish a certificate issued by
\nSuperintendent of Police of the district of
\nwhich he is the resident, showing that he as
\nwell as his family members possess good
\nmoral character and have no criminal
\nbackground or criminal record, within thirty
\ndays of grant of licence.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tThat he shall not employ any salesman or
\nrepresentative who has criminal background
\nas mentioned in clause  (iii) or who suffer
\nfrom any infectious or contagious disease or
\nis below 21 years of age or a woman.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tThat no government dues are outstanding
\nagainst him.”\n<\/p>\n
Rule 10 envisages formation of a District Level Committee; whereas
\nRule 11 provides for selection of licensees, clauses (b) and (c) whereof read
\nthus :\n<\/p>\n
“(b)\tThe said committee shall select licensees from the
\nlist of applicants.  In case more than one applicants
\nare found suitable for any particular group of shops
\nthe committee shall select the licensee for such
\ngroup of shops by lottery.  In case the selected
\napplicant does not deposit the required amount
\naccording to rule 13 and does not fulfil the
\nprescribed formalities or is unable to arrange
\nsuitable premises for the shops within stipulated
\nperiod, the licensing authority shall cancel the
\nallotment and take steps for resettlement of the
\nshops\/group of shops..\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tIn case thee is no application for a particular group
\nof shops or no applicant is found suitable for a
\ngroup of shops the licensing authority shall take
\nimmediate steps for resettlement as per procedure
\nlaid down in rule 8.”\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 13 provides for payment of licence fee and security amount,
\nwhich reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Payment of licence fee and security amount  In case an
\napplicant is selected as licensee, he shall deposit one
\nmonth’s amount of license fee and the security amount
\nwithin three days of being informed of his selection.  If
\nhe fails to deposit the amount of one month licence fee
\nand security amount within prescribed period, his
\nselection shall stand cancelled and the said licensee shall
\nbe debarred from holding any excise licence in future,
\nanywhere in the State and his applications fee shall also
\nstand forfeited.  A consolidated list of such defaulters
\nunder this rule, along with their complete addresses shall
\nbe forwarded by the District Excise officer\/Assistant
\nCommissioner to the Excise Commissioner, who will
\ncirculate the consolidated list of the State to all the
\nlicensing authorities of the State.”\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 23 provides for suspension and cancellation of the licence, in the
\nevent any  of the conditions laid down therein is violated;  clause (c)
\nwhereof  is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“If the affidavit submitted by the  licensee at the time of
\napplication is found incorrect and assertions made therein
\nare found to be false.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  terms of the provisions of the said Rules, a format in which an
\napplication is to be filed is prescribed  providing for filing of an affidavit
\nduly verified by a public notary.\n<\/p>\n
AMENDMENT IN THE RULES AND CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE
\nCOMMISSONER OF EXCISE  :\n<\/p>\n
\tOn or about 9.3.2004,  clause  (c) of  Rule 8 of the Rules was
\namended in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“(c)\tthe application form and affidavit as per format
\nprescribed by the Excise Commissioner, along with
\napplication fee fixed under Rule 6 shall be submitted to
\nthe licensing authority of concerning district or grant of
\nlicense for retail shops\/group of country\/foreign liquor,
\nwithin the stipulated date and time.”\n<\/p>\n
\tPursuant to or in furtherance of the said power conferred upon him,
\nthe Commissioner of Excise prescribed  formats  of application form and
\naffidavit to be furnished with the application for country\/foreign liquor
\nshops\/groups.\n<\/p>\n
 On or about 14.2.2004, a circular came to be issued by the
\nCommissioner of Excise whereby and whereunder it was directed that the
\napplicants were not required to file  affidavits along with their applications
\nas was laid down in the Rules; but such affidavits may be filed after their
\nselection was made.    Sub-clauses (1), (2)  of  clause 8 and clause 22 of the
\nsaid circular read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“8. APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF
\nCOUNTRY\/FOEIGN LIQUOR SHOP\/GROUP :\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) Application form for the year 2005-06 for
\ncountry\/foreign liquor retail shops\/groups which has been
\namended and published in notification issued by this
\noffice is being enclosed and sent.  Application for
\ncountry\/foreign liquor retail shop can be made by any
\napplicant in the specified enclosed format only.  Separate
\napplications will be accepted for every group.
\nApplication fee in accordance with the cost price of the
\nconcerned group should be in the form of bank
\ndraft\/bankers cheque\/bank’s cash order form a
\nnationalized bank\/scheduled commercial bank or challan
\nreceived after submitting the cash in the treasury is
\nmandatory to be produced in original with the
\napplication.  Applicant should not make any change or
\namendment in the format of application form and
\napplication form will be accepted in prescribed format
\nonly.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tFor the year 2005-06, the Select Committee
\nwill make a draw using a computer and select first,
\nsecond and third applicant.  It will be mandatory for
\nthose selected first, second and third applicants to
\nimmediately produce an affidavit duly verified by a
\nnotary.  Selected applicants should not make any changes
\nor amendments to the format of the affidavit and the
\naffidavit will be accepted in the specified format only.
\nFormat of the affidavit will be in accordance with the
\nknown format of 2004-05.”\n<\/p>\n
  “22. \tAMENDMENT IN THE CHHATTISGARH
\nEXCISE SETTLEMENT OF LICENCES FOR RETAIL
\nSALE OF COUNTRY\/FOREIGN\tLIQUOR RULES,
\n2002 :\n<\/p>\n
\tFor settlement of retail shops\/groups of
\ncountry\/foreign liquor for the year 2005-06, under
\napplication system, aforesaid directions are being issued
\nand accordingly proceedings shall be ascertained, even
\nthen where amendment is to be done in the Chhattisgarh
\nExcise Settlement of Licences for retail sale of
\ncountry\/foreign liquor Rules, 2002, for that notification
\nshall be sent severally.  Similarly, for licence fees
\nprescribed for the year 2005-06 for licence of F.L. 2 &
\nF.L. 3, notification shall be sent separately.”\n<\/p>\n
TENDER PROCESS :\n<\/p>\n
\tA notice inviting applications for grant of licence under the Act and
\nthe Rules  was issued on 14.2.2005, clauses (2), (3), (4), (5) and (9)  whereof
\nare as under :\n<\/p>\n
“2.\tAs per the above programme, the Collector concerned
\nshall publish the notice in his district on the date fixed,
\nwherein in respect of retail country\/foreign liquor
\nshop\/group, the minimum surety amount, duty amount,
\namount of licence fee annual revenue, 1\/12th part of
\nlicence fee and 1\/12th part of the duty amount on
\nminimum surety amount and one month licence fee shall
\nbe mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tFor allotment of the country\/foreign liquor retail
\nshops\/groups, only those persons\/firms\/companies shall
\nsubmit the applications who are entitled for getting the
\nexcise licence under the C.G. Excise Act,  1915.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe applicants for allotment of country\/foreign liquor
\nretail shops\/groups for the year 2005-06 shall get the
\nprescribed proforma from the office of Assistant Excise
\nCommissioner\/District Excise Officer.  On the prescribed
\nproforma only, the applicant by typing or handwriting
\nregarding the country\/foreign liquor retail shop of the
\nconcerned district shall apply.  For each group, the
\nseparate application will be accepted.  Along with the
\napplication form, as per the cost, the application fees
\nthrough the Draft\/Bankers cheque\/Cash Order of Bank of
\nNationalised Bank\/Scheduled Commercial Bank or by
\ncash, shall be submitted in the Treasury through original
\nchallan.  The applicant shall not make any change or
\namendment in the prescribed proforma and the
\napplications in prescribed form will be accepted only.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tFor the year 2005-06, the selection of first, second and
\nthird candidates will be made by computer through
\nlottery system and they have to submit immediately the
\naffidavit certified by the notary.  The selected candidate
\nshall not make any change or amendment in the affidavit
\nand the affidavit will only be accepted in the prescribed
\nform.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe allotment of shops\/groups and their running for the
\nyear 20065-06 shall govern as per the C.G. Excise Act,
\n1915 and the rules framed thereunder and the
\nChhattisgarh Excise Settlement of Licences for retail sale
\nof country\/foreign liquor Rules, 2002 and the amended
\nterms and conditions and the orders of the State
\nGovt.\/Commissioner, Excise\/Collector\/Assistant Excise
\nCommissioner\/District Excise Officer.”\n<\/p>\n
\tPursuant to or in furtherance of the said notice inviting applications,
\nabout 2,64,703,. applications were filed out of which about 3000
\napplications were rejected.  Selection process began in different districts by
\nthe District Level Committees between the period from 9.3.2005 and
\n16.3.2005.\n<\/p>\n
The Excise Rules were further amended on or about 22.3.2005 in the
\nfollowing terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“Raipur, the 22nd March, 2005
\n\t\t\tNOTIFICATION<\/p>\n
No.F-10\/6\/2005\/CT\/V(4).-In exercise of the powers
\nconferred under Section (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-
\nclause(2) of sub-clause (3) of clause 62 of the
\nChhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (No.II of 1915), the State
\nGovernment hereby makes the following amendment in
\nthe Chhattisgarh Excise Settlement of Licenses for retail
\nsale of Country\/Foreign Liquor Rules, 2002, namely :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tAMENDMENT<\/p>\n
\t\tIn the said rules, in rule  8, –\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe existing clause (C) shall be substituted by the
\nfollowing clause (C), namely :-\n<\/p>\n
(C)\tThe application form under rule-6 along
\nwith prescribed application fee shall be
\nsubmitted to the Licensing Authority of the
\nconcerned district within prescribed date &
\ntime for grant of licence for retail
\nshop\/group of country\/foreign liquor in the
\nproforma prescribed by the Excise
\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tAfter clause  (C) the following clause (C-1) shall
\nbe added, namely :\n<\/p>\n
(C-I)\tThe first, second & third applicant selected
\nfor retail shop\/group of country\/foreign
\nliquor by the selection committee after
\nlottery drawn by computer must submit
\naffidavit verified by the Notary in the
\nprescribed proforma the next day during
\noffice hours.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThis amendment shall be effective for the
\nsettlement of Licenses for retail sale shops of
\nCountry\/Foreign liquor for the year 2005-06.”\n<\/p>\n
WRIT PROCEEDINGS  :\n<\/p>\n
The instant case originally arose out of a public interest litigation in
\nJitendra Pali vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WP No.706 of 2005).  Subsequently,
\nthe other petitions came to be filed by candidates including Rishi Dixit vs.
\nState of Chhattisgarh (WP No. 956 of 2005).  Both the writ petitions were
\nheard together and separate judgments were delivered in each of them.  The
\njudgment in WP No.956 of 2005 came to be passed by the High Court on
\n31.5.2005, which is the subject matter of appeal arising out of SLP (Civil)
\nCC No 4529; while the judgment and order in WP No. 706 of 2005 came to
\nbe passed by the High Court on 8.4.2005 which is the subject matter of
\nappeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8575 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\tOriginally in the said writ application the changes made in the
\nselection process, namely, from manual to computer was in question; but an
\napplication for amendment of the writ petition was made on 9.3.2005
\nwherein it was contended that the selection process adopted by the State was
\nvitiated, inter alia, on the premise that no affidavit was filed by the
\napplicants as was mandatorily required by Rule 9 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
The contention raised on behalf of the State after the amendment
\ndated 22.3.2005 before the High Court was that Rule 9 was directory in
\nnature and not mandatory and in any event, as the said rule was amended in
\nconsonance with the powers of the State regarding  retrospective amendment
\nof the Rules, the selection process was  not vitiated.  Now, this amendment
\nvalidates with retrospective effect, the filing of affidavits after the selections
\nare made.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore we consider the judgment passed by the High Court, we may
\nnotice that an interim order was passed in the writ petition  on 3.3.2005.  On
\nor about 7.3.2005, however, the said interim order was modified by the High
\nCourt directing :\n<\/p>\n
\t“As mentioned above, in view of the return has
\nbeen filed and the matter is to be heard and disposed of
\nfinally, we modify the earlier order of M.W.P. No.
\n593\/2005, to the extent that the respondents may continue
\nwith the process of selecting the licensees, however, if
\nbefore the disposal of this writ petition the process of
\nselection of the licensees is completed, the respondents
\nshould not communicate the order of their selection to the
\nselected licensees.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWith a view to complete the narration of facts, we may also mention
\nthat several intervention applications were also filed by the alleged
\nsuccessful bidders.\n<\/p>\n
HIGH COURT JUDGMENT  :\n<\/p>\n
The High Court upon analyzing the provisions of the Act and the
\nRules framed thereunder was of the opinion that the State was entitled to
\nmake the selection of the eligible candidates through computer.  It was,
\nhowever, opined that the District Level Committees did not make any
\nscrutiny whatsoever to find out as to whether the applicants concerned
\nsatisfied the eligibility conditions laid down in Rule 9 or not, as no
\ninformation was required to be furnished in the format prescribed by the
\nCommissioner of Excise in that behalf.  The High Court was further of the
\nopinion that the disclosure of such information by the applicants even before
\nthe submission of applications were necessary so as to enable the authorities
\nto satisfy themselves about the fulfillment of different eligibility conditions
\nmentioned in Rule 9.  Consequently, it was directed that a fresh selection be
\nmade in terms of the extant rules.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court while rejecting  the wider challenge on the legal
\npolicy, held : (a) The circular letter dated 14.2.2005 issued by the
\nCommissioner of Excise was contrary to the Rules insofar as eligibility
\ncriteria laid down in Rule 9 thereof were dispensed with. (b) The
\napplications filed by the applicants were not properly scrutinized, except the
\nrequirement of Rule 9(c), namely, whether the applicants were black-listed
\nor otherwise not eligible. (c)  While holding that the application fees to the
\nextent of 77 crores earned by the State need not be refunded, it directed
\nscrutiny of about 2.65 lakhs applications by the respective District Level
\nCommittees for their satisfaction that all eligibility requirements stand
\nsatisfied whereafter only the draw of lottery may take place.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court, however, for the reasons stated in its judgment
\nalthough not directed for calling for fresh applications but mandated the
\nState to consider the necessary informations required from the applicants by
\nway of affidavit before the candidates are selected for grant of liquor licence.\n<\/p>\n
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT :\n<\/p>\n
 Applications for grant of special leave to appeal have been filed by
\nthe State of Chhattisgarh as also by  several selected candidates.  By an order
\ndated 8.4.2005, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order
\nsubject to the condition that if the Government desires to award the contract
\nas an interim arrangement to the successful bidders, it shall do so only after
\nobtaining the necessary approval of the Committee already constituted for
\nconsideration of these applications.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said order was communicated on 9.4.2005. The applications of
\nthe selected candidates were scrutinized on 10.4.2005 and 11.4.2005 and
\nlicences were granted to the so-called successful bidders on 11.4.2005 and
\n12.4.2005.\n<\/p>\n
SUBMISSIONS  :\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Ashok Desai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe State, would submit that the High Court fell in grave error in
\ninterpretation\/construction of  Rule 9 of the Rules inasmuch as it failed to
\ntake into consideration that whereas clauses (a) to (c) contained therein are
\nmandatory in nature, clause (d) is directory in nature as the same was
\nrequired to be fulfilled only upon the selection of the candidates concerned.
\nThe learned counsel placed strong reliance, in this behalf, on a decision of
\nthis Court in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh etc. vs. Chairman, Bihar
\nLegislative Council and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 747].   According to the
\nlearned counsel, the State, having the requisite power to amend the Rules
\nwith retrospective effect, issued the Notification dated 22.3.2005 which was
\nretrospective in nature.  [Reliance, in this connection, has been placed on
\nThe State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Tikamdas<\/a>  (1975) 2 SCC 100].
\nIt was contended that the High Court also failed to construe properly the
\neffect of  amended Rule 8 (c) in terms whereof affidavit to be verified before
\nthe public notary in the prescribed format was required to be filed on the day
\nfollowing the selection and, thus, the requirement of filing the affidavit
\nalong with application in terms of the said rule was dispensed with.  In any
\nview of the matter, the learned counsel would urge that having regard to the
\nfact that all candidates including the writ petitioners before the High Court
\nunderstood the rule in the same manner, namely, the affidavits were required
\nto be filed after the selection process was over and, thus, did not choose to
\nfile any affidavit whatsoever and, thus, the rules should have been construed
\nin such a manner.   The learned counsel placed on strong reliance, in this
\nconnection, on G.J. Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka and Others<\/a>  [(1990) 2
\nSCC 488). In any event,  the same  would amount to acquiescence on the
\npart the  writ   petitioners.  Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on
\nNain Sukh Das and Another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others<\/a>
\n[(1953) SCR 1184].  It was submitted that the validity of the rules\/circulars
\nhaving not been challenged by the writ petitioners, the High Court fell in
\nerror in passing the impugned judgment.  The learned counsel would argue
\nthat one of the applicants was a lawyer and others being interested persons,
\nthe writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation was not
\nmaintainable.  The learned counsel would submit that having regard to the
\nwell-settled principles of law that the State despite Article 14 of the
\nConstitution of India has a greater play in the joints while parting with its
\nexclusive privilege, non-compliance of Rule 9 could not be held to have
\nvitiated the entire selection process.  Reliance, in his behalf, has been placed
\non State of M.P. and Others vs. Nandlad Jaiswal and Others  [(1986) 4 SCC
\n566].\n<\/p>\n
\tIn any view of the matter, Mr. Desai, would argue that it is not a fit
\ncase where the court should grant any relief in favour of the writ petitioners.
\nStrong reliance, in this connection, has been placed on K.N. Guruswamy vs.
\nThe State of Mysore and Another [(1955) 1 SCR 305].\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe Appellants in Civil Appeal arising out S.L.P. (CC No. 4571), while
\nsupplementing the arguments of Mr. Desai,  pointed out that the amending
\nrules having not been challenged and having regard to the fact that the
\nrequirement of filing an affidavit has not been given up, the High Court fell
\nin error in holding Rule 9 as mandatory, despite the fact that the said
\nrequirement was to be complied with only at a later stage.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Ravi Shanker Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the Appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP No. 10653 of
\n2005 would contend that even the unamended Rule 9 envisaged filing of an
\naffidavit at a post selection stage as would appear from the language used in
\nclauses (a), (b) and (c) as contrasted from clause (d)  thereof.  The
\namendment in the rules, the learned counsel would contend, made the
\nposition patent when it was latent.  Rule 9, as Mr. Prasad would argue, was
\nrequired to be read with Rule 13 and so read it would be evident that the
\nnature of requirement for filing an affidavit was only post selection.\n<\/p>\n
\tDrawing our attention to the fact that the mode of selection through
\nlottery is permissible in view of the decision of this Court in Rajendra Singh
\nvs. State of M.P. and Others [(1996) 5 SCC 460], Mr. Prasad would contend
\nthat the requirement to comply with the rules should have been considered
\nhaving regard to the changed mode of selection in terms of Rule 11(b).
\nPublic Interest Litigation, Mr. Prasad would urge, should not be entertained
\nwhereby the economic policy adopted by the State in the matter of vending
\nliquor is challenged.  Reliance, in this connection, has been placed on
\nNandlal Jaiswal (supra). Mr. Prasad also placed strong reliance upon Balco
\nEmployees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others<\/a> [(2002) 2 SCC
\n333] in support of his contention that if the petitioner was not aggrieved, he
\ncannot have locus standi to maintain a writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the Appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (CC No.4579),
\nwould submit that the object of the Act and the rules framed thereunder
\nbeing to augment the revenue and preventing  adulteration of liquor; the
\nstate action can be challenged only if it is unfair in the sense that nobody
\nwas given an opportunity to participate in the auction.  As in this case all
\npersons were treated similarly in pursuance of or in furtherance of the
\nadvertisement, insofar as no applicant had filed any affidavit, it cannot be
\nsaid that anybody was prejudiced by reason of non-compliance of Rule 9.
\nThe learned counsel would also contend that the writ petitioner having
\nhimself not filed any affidavit, he is estopped and precluded from
\nquestioning the alleged violation of Rule 9, which only provides for
\ncompliance of a procedural requirement.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the Appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (CC No.4569) would
\nalso contend that requirement of Rule 9(d) was only post selection.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the Respondents, on the other hand, would take us through various
\ndocuments with a view to show that the District Level Committees after
\npassing of this Court’s order dated 8.4.2005 proceeded to consider the
\napplications filed by the successful candidates in a post haste manner which
\nwould clearly demonstrate non-application of mind on their part.  The
\nlearned counsel pointed out that in many cases there had been hardly any
\ndeliberation amongst the members of the committee; while in some cases
\neven affidavits were not filed.  Drawing our attention to Rule 11, the learned
\ncounsel would submit that in no case a summary report was prepared so as
\nto enable the Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize the eligibility conditions.  Mr.
\nSorabjee would argue that Rule 9 is mandatory in nature and, thus,  all
\napplications for grant of liquor licence would call for scrutiny.  Even if such
\na consideration is read to be directory, no substantial compliance thereof
\nhaving been made, it was argued, the entire selection process must be held to
\nbe vitiated in law.  The learned counsel would contend that from the
\naffidavit filed by the State, it would appear that the contents of the affidavits
\nhad not been verified in accordance with law and the contents thereof had
\nex-facie been accepted on a pre-supposition that they were correct although
\nthere exists no statutory rule empowering the Committee to raise such a
\npresumption.\n<\/p>\n
\tDr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe some of the Respondents would urge that the functionaries of the State
\nand\/or the Selection Committees, having regard to the nature of transaction
\nwere required to verify the applications before selection.  It was pointed out
\nthat despite the fact that the High Court by an order dated 7.3.2004
\nprohibited the State from disclosing the list of selected candidates, the so-
\ncalled selected candidates filed applications for grant of special leave to
\nappeal before this Court on the premise that they had been selected.  It was
\nsubmitted that the amendment carried out in Rule 9 on or about 9.3.2004
\nwas wholly irrelevant.  Drawing our attention to the judgment of the High
\nCourt, the learned counsel would submit that it has rightly been found  that
\nsub-rule (3) of Rule 9 compared to the old provisions contained therein in
\nview of the language thereof clearly demonstrates that Rule 9 is mandatory
\nin nature.   The amendment made in Rule 9 by reason of the notification
\ndated 22.3.2005, Dr. Singhvi would argue, cannot put the clock back as the
\nentire selection process was completed by then.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. G.L. Sanghi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\nsome of the Respondents  would submit that keeping in view the fact that
\nwhile exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, the State is concerned with
\nthe maintenance of public health and, thus,   Rule 9 should be held to be
\nmandatory particularly having regard to the fact that such affidavit is also
\nnecessary for the purpose of exercise of power by the State for suspension
\nand cancellation of licence in terms of Rule 23(1) (c) of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\tConditions conceived in Rule 9 being in public interest, Mr. Sanghi
\nwould contend, are mandatory in character.  It was pointed out that whereas
\nin terms of amendment dated 9.3.2004, the Commissioner of Excise  had
\nbeen empowered to prescribe the format, he had no jurisdiction to do away
\nwith or dilute the statutory requirements to file an affidavit as required by
\nRule 9 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
\nthe some of the respondents, would urge that the eligibility clauses contained
\nin the Rules must be held to be mandatory in nature  and in support thereof
\nreliance has been placed on Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International
\nAirport Authority of India and Others<\/a> [(1979) 3 SCR 1014] and R. Prabha
\nDevi and Others vs. Government of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of
\nPersonnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and Others<\/a> [(1988) 2 SCC
\n233].\n<\/p>\n
\tDr. Rajiv Dhawan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe writ petitioners\/Appellants, would, inter alia, submit that the
\ninterpretation and\/or construction of the rules must be made having regard to
\nArticle 47 of the Constitution of India vis-`-vis the doctrine of ‘res extra
\ncommercium’.  The learned counsel would contend that before the High
\nCourt a contention was raised that a solvency certificate should be directed
\nto be filed along with the application for grant of  licence as it would help in
\nprevention of investment of  black money in the trade.  The learned counsel
\nwould urge that the courts in a situation of this nature will apply cautionary
\nprinciples having regard to the fact that the activities of the State must be
\nresponsible in nature.  Dr. Dhawan would submit that the rules have to be
\nread as a whole and not in a manner which would give undue advantage to
\npersons who were not fit to carry on the trade in liquor keeping in view the
\nobnoxious nature thereof.  The rules were required to be applied from stage
\nto stage, it was argued, having regard to the purport and object thereof so
\nthat effective step may be taken by the Committee to weed out the unwanted
\napplicants.\n<\/p>\n
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION  :\n<\/p>\n
It may not be necessary for us to consider as to whether the public
\ninterest litigation should have been entertained by the High Court or not. The
\nHigh Court did entertain the public interest litigation without any objection
\nand ultimately allowed the same. Furthermore it is well settled that even in a
\ncase where a petitioner might have moved the court in his private interest
\nand for redressal of personal grievances, the court in furtherance of the
\npublic interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the
\nsubject of litigation in the interest of  justice. [See Guruyayoor Devaswom
\nManaging Committee and Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Others  [(2003) 7 SCC
\n546  para 50] and  Prahlad Singh vs. Col. Sukhdev Singh<\/a> (1987) 1 SCC
\n727] <\/p>\n
ACQUIESCENE :\n<\/p>\n
When a public interest litigation was entertained the individual
\nconduct of the writ petitioners would take a backseat. There cannot be any
\ndoubt whatsoever that in a given case a party may waive his legal right. In
\nan appropriate case, the doctrine of acquiescence or acceptance sub silentio
\nmay also be invoked. [See Haryana State Coop. Land Dev. Bank vs. Neelam<\/a>
\n[2005 (2) SCALE 434], but the High Court, in the instant case,  has gone
\ninto the question with a wider perspective. This Court is not only required to
\nconstrue the provisions of the statute but also to take into consideration the
\nsubsequent events which took place vis-a-vis the action on the part of the
\nState after passing of the interim order. The issue as regard application of
\nacquiescence or waiver. therefore in our opinion has become irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
ANALYSIS OF THE RULES  :\n<\/p>\n
The Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and the rules framed thereunder
\nare regulatory in nature.  They are being so enacted so as to ensure public
\nhealth as trade in liquor is considered to be obnoxious one.  The State has a
\nduty to see that its people do not consume spurious or adulterated liquor.
\nThe Act and the rules no doubt contain  provisions for cancellation and\/or
\nsuspension of the licence in the event the conditions laid down therein are
\nviolated,  but it is beyond any cavil that before a licence is granted, the
\napplicant must satisfy all the statutory conditions and meet the eligibility
\nrequirements. [See  Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra) and R. Prabha Devi
\n(supra).  Rule 8(e) provided for a requirement to furnish a bank draft from a
\nnationalized bank as earnest money.  Rule 9 of the Rules preserves all other
\neligibility requirements.  The Circular dated 15.3.2003 dispensed with the
\nrequirements as contained in Rule 8(e) of the Rules.  The number of outlets
\nwere increased by 92 from 812 to 904.  The High Court has noticed that
\nnone of the eligibility requirements except those as contained in Rule 9(c) of
\nthe Rules had been observed by the Committee.  The State has earned Rs. 77
\ncrores from 2.65 lakhs applicants whose eligibilities were not verified.
\nIndisputably, the State while granting a licence in favour of a person dealing
\nin liquor should ensure that the same is granted to a person who would be
\notherwise eligible to deal therewith.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder contain
\nseveral restrictions and limitations which are imposed upon the applicants.
\nThe procedures for selection must be fair and in consonance with the
\nprovisions of the Act and the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
The persons who fulfill the said eligibility criteria and satisfy the
\nrequirements laid down under the Act and the Rules only could file such
\napplications which required scrutiny thereof so as to enable the statutory
\nauthorities to consider their cases for grant of licence. The advertisement
\nissued by the State calls upon only such persons to file applications who are
\nsuitable therefor, which in turn would mean that the applicants must satisfy
\nthe authorities that they are eligible for grant of licence. The applicants must
\nalso demonstrate that they are suitable for grant of licence as in the event of
\ntheir being found unsuitable, steps are required to be taken by the committee
\nfor resettlement of the shops, wherefor procedures laid down in Rule 8 were
\nrequired to be complied with again.\n<\/p>\n
Stricter restriction is contemplated in the matter of compliance of the
\nterms and conditions of the licence.  Rule 4 of the Rules permits not more
\nthan two groups to a single licensee.\n<\/p>\n
 Rule 9 provides that the eligibility conditions should be scrutinized
\nbefore an application is made.   Rule 9 is in two parts.  It  deals with the
\neligibility conditions of the applicant.  It  does not make any exception as
\nregard  fulfilment of different clauses inasmuch as the said rules begin with
\nthe expression “the applicant has to fulfil the following conditions”.  Such
\nconditions are required to be fulfilled for obtaining the licence. Whereas
\nclauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof are essential conditions which would debar a
\nperson from filing an application and if such an application is filed, the same
\nwould be liable to be rejected at the outset.  An applicant having regard to
\nthe expressions used in clause (d) has to file an affidavit. Filing of such
\naffidavit, therefore, is mandatory.    However, affidavit is required to be filed
\nby the applicant to show  that : (i) he possesses or may arrange for taking on
\nrent suitable premises; (ii) he possesses good moral character and  has no
\ncriminal background and has not been convicted of any offence punishable
\nunder the Act or Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or
\nany other law for the time being in force or any other cognizable and non-
\nbailable offence.  Clause (3) of sub-rule (d) of Rule 9 enjoins a duty upon
\nthe authorities to get the same verified whereupon only  a certificate is
\nrequired to be issued by the Superintendent of Police of the district of which
\nhe is the resident in the event his selection as a licensee showing that he as
\nwell as his family members possess good moral character and there is no
\ncriminal background or criminal record against them.  Such certificate is
\nrequired to be filed within thirty days from the grant of licence.  He also in
\nterms of the said clause (5) of sub-rule (d) of Rule 9 is to state that no
\ngovernment dues are outstanding against him.\n<\/p>\n
\tKeeping in view that a large number of applications are required to be
\ndealt with, the rules contemplate constitution of a committee comprising the
\nCollector of the District and the District Excise Officer\/Assistant
\nCommissioner of the District, who would be the enforcing agency.  Rule 11
\nprovides for the mode and manner in which selection is to take place.
\nClause (a) thereof provides for preparation of a summary report by the
\nMember Secretary for the purpose of placing it before the District Level
\nCommittee.  Clause (b) thereof provides that in the event the Committee
\nselects licensees from the list of the applicants and in the event  more than
\none  applicants are found suitable for any particular group of shops, the
\nCommittee shall select the licensee for such group of shops by lottery, in
\nwhich event the selected applicant has to deposit the required amount
\naccording to Rule 13 and fulfill the other prescribed formalities including
\nthe requirement to comply with the provisions of clause (1) of sub-rule (d) of
\nRule 9.   Clause (b) of Rule 11, therefore, presupposes that before a licence
\nis granted the requirements contemplated therein should be complied with. A
\ncandidate before selection must be found to be eligible therefor. It postulates
\nthat before the actual licence is granted, the conditions precedents as
\ncontained therein are required to be fulfilled, failing which the Committee
\nmust take steps for resettlement of shops or group of shops.  The question of
\npayment of licence fee or security amount arises when an applicant is
\nselected for grant of licence in terms of Rule 13.\n<\/p>\n
The Scrutiny Committee is also enjoined with a duty to see as to
\nwhether a person was a defaulter or not.\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 9, as it originally stood, thus, on proper construction must be
\nheld to have laid down that  an affidavit was required to be filed by the
\napplicant which is fortified by the fact that Rule 23(1)(c) contemplates that if
\nthe affidavit submitted by the licensees at the time of application is found
\nincorrect and assertions made therein are found to be false, the Licensing
\nAuthority would be empowered to suspend or cancel the licence.  The rule
\nread as a whole, therefore, provided for filing of an affidavit at the time of
\ngrant of licence.  Furthermore the vary fact that a circular  was issued by the
\nCommissioner of Excise asking the applicants to file an affidavit after the
\nselection process is over itself is a pointer to the fact that filing of such an
\naffidavit along with the application was considered by all concerned to be
\nnecessary.  The advertisement was also required to be issued in consonance
\nwith the rules and not in derogation thereof.    It would, therefore, be not
\ncorrect to contend that whereas clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 9 postulates
\ncompliance thereof at a pre-selection stage, clause (d) postulates compliance
\nat the post-selection stage.  The distinction between compliance of
\nrequirements at pre-selection and post-selection is also evident from reading
\nRule 9(d)(1)(2) and Rule 9(d)(3) separately, inasmuch whereas the former
\nclearly postulates compliance at  pre-selection stage, the latter deals with a
\nsituation which is post-selection.\n<\/p>\n
The expression “has to submit an affidavit” ex facie is mandatory in
\nnature and such affidavit  necessarily has to deal with the requirements
\ncontained in clauses (1) and (2).  If the rule making authority was of the
\nopinion that such an affidavit was required to be filed at a later date and not
\nwith an application, it could have said so in express terms; as has been done in
\nthe case of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9.  In fact, all the sub clauses were to be a part
\nof affidavit as clauses (3), (4) and (5) would be only by way of undertaking,
\nalthough the requirements of clauses (3) and (4) can be fulfilled after the grant
\nof licence.  The same should appear from the format of the affidavit itself.\n<\/p>\n
The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory would
\ndepend upon the statutory scheme. It is now well known that use of  the
\nexpression “shall” or “may” by itself is not decisive. The  court while
\nconstruing a statute must consider all relevant factors including the purpose
\nand object the statute seeks to achieve.  [See  P.T. Rajan Vs. T.P.M. Sahir
\n(2003) 8 SCC 498 and U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Shiv Mohan Singh
\nand Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 402.\n<\/p>\n
Furthermore, filing of an affidavit in the prescribed format is a
\nstatutory requirement under the Rules.  Filing of such an affidavit is
\nnecessary as in the event the same on verification is found to be incorrect,
\nnot only the deponent can be proceeded against but his licence would also be
\nliable to be cancelled.  Filing of an affidavit under the Rules is, therefore,
\nmandatory in character.\n<\/p>\n
The Commissioner of Excise issued a circular letter dated 14.2.2005
\nwhich power evidently he did not possess in terms of Section 7 of the Act.
\nAlthough the State may delegate its power to the Commissioner of Excise,
\nsuch a delegation cannot be made in relation to the matters contained in the
\nrule making power of the State.  The matters which are, therefore, outside
\nthe purview of the rules only could be the  subject-matter of delegation in
\nfavour of the Commissioner of Execise. The Commissioner of Excise is a
\nstatutory authority.  He is bound to exercise his power only within the four-
\ncorners of the Act or the rules framed thereunder and not de’ hors the same.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Desai is also not correct in his submission that  clause 22 of the
\nsaid circular contemplates a future amendment in the rules.  Even if the same
\ncontemplates a future amendment, the same would not sub-serve the
\nstatutory requirements inasmuch as the Commissioner of Excise was not
\nsupposed to know as to how the existing rules would be amended and
\nwhether the same would be applied prospectively or retrospectively.  The
\nCourt cannot draw a presumption that the Commissioner of Excise could
\nproceed on a pre-supposition that his action in issuing a circular contrary to
\nrules would stand ratified by retrospective operation of the rules.  A statutory
\nauthority, it is trite, must exercise his jurisdiction with the four-corners of
\nthe statute and cannot deviate or depart therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
It is interesting to note that the Rules were amended only for one
\nexcise year.  The rule making power should be exercised having regard to
\nthe policy to be adopted by the State.  Such a policy may vary from time to
\ntime.  Having regard to the exigency for the situation, rule may also be
\namended but we do snot see any reason as to why an attempt should be made
\nto amend the rule only with a view to justify an  illegal action on the part of
\nthe Commissioner of Excise for the year 2005-06.  Although the validity of
\nthe rules have not been challenged, the court cannot shut its eyes from
\nconsidering this aspect of the matter.  We are not oblivious of the fact that
\nframing of rules is not an executive act but a legislative act;  but there cannot
\nbe any doubt whatsoever that such subordinate legislation must be framed
\nstrictly in consonance with the legislative intent as reflected in the rule
\nmaking power contained in Section 62 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy reason of the amendment carried out in the rules in terms of the
\nnotification dated 9.3.2004, the Commissioner  of Excise was empowered to
\nprescribe a format of the application form and affidavit.  Such an application
\nor affidavit could be filed within the date and time stipulated by him but the
\nsame would not mean that while prescribing a format in respect of an
\napplication form or affidavit, he became authorized to dilute the statutory
\nrequirements or dispense with the same.  No exception can although be
\ntaken as regard the format relating to the applications, strong exception has
\nto taken as regard the format of the affidavit.  Clauses 5 and (6) of the
\naffidavit are  as under :\n<\/p>\n
“(5)\tThat the Deponent neither owes any dues to the
\ngovernment or public works nor his name exists in
\nthe black list and neither he has been debarred to
\nacquire excise licence under Chhattisgarh Excise
\nAct, 1915 and rules made thereunder and amended
\nChhattisgarh Excise Settlement for License for
\nRetail Sale of Country\/Foreign Liquor Rules,
\n2002.”\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tThat the Deponent bears good moral character.  He
\nhas not been held guilty of non-bailable offence
\nunder Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 or Narcotics
\nDrugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or
\nany other procedure or law promulgated that time.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA bare comparison of the said clauses with Rule 9 would demonstrate
\nthat the same do not satisfy the statutory requirements  <\/p>\n
ARE THE AMENDING RULES  RETROSPECTIVE :\n<\/p>\n
\tAt this juncture, we may notice the effect of the amendment effected in
\nterms of the notification dated 22.3.2005.  But before we proceed to do so, it
\nmay be noticed that indisputably the entire selection process was over by
\n16.3.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy reason of the said notification, clause (c) of Rule 8(1) was
\nsubstituted.  The substituted provisions lay down that the application form
\nprescribed in terms of Rule 6 together with the prescribed application fee
\nshall be submitted in the proforma prescribed by the Commissioner of
\nExcise.\n<\/p>\n
\tYet again clause (C-1) was added after clause (c) providing that the
\nfirst, second and third applicants selected must submit an affidavit duly
\nverified by the public notary in the prescribed proforma next day during
\noffice hours.  The notification does not state that the amendment will have a
\nretrospective effect.  In absence of any express provisions contained in the
\nnotification, the court will not ordinarily presume the same to be
\nretrospective in nature.\n<\/p>\n
\tA statute must be read reasonably.  A statute should not read in such a
\nmanner which results in absurdity.   A statute, on its plain language,
\nalthough postulates a prospective operation, it  cannot be held to be
\nretrospective only because it would apply for the excise year for which
\napplications were invited despite the fact that the selection process made
\nthereunder is over.  The State is bound by the terms of the advertisement and
\nthe rules existing at that time.  The statutory authorities and the applicants
\nare expected to follow the law  as it stood thence.  No step could be taken on
\nthe pre-supposition that the rule would be amended. It is also not a case
\nwhere draft rules were already in existence and such draft rules had been
\napplied, which could otherwise be permissible in law. But a situation of this
\nnature is not contemplated in law.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Desai would argue that as amendment has to be effective for the
\nsettlement of licence for country\/foreign liquor retail shops for the year
\n2005-06, the same may be held to be retrospective in nature.  Even for the
\nsaid purpose, it was expected of the rule making authority to say so
\nexpressly.\n<\/p>\n
A rule may not be challenged  as ultra vires the Act, but its
\ninterpretation can certainly be an issue.  The rule if given retrospective effect
\nwould become unworkable and would not capable of being given effect to.
\nA rule cannot be framed keeping in view that the Commissioner has issued
\ncertain circular which is illegal.  By reason of a rule making power, an
\ninvalid action on the part of the Commissioner of Excise cannot be
\nvalidated.\n<\/p>\n
If a selection process is over upon following a procedure which is
\nillegal, by reason of a rule making power the same cannot be rendered valid
\nsimply by directing that the same shall govern the selection of applicants for
\ngrant of licence under the Act for the year 2005-06.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question as to whether it can be given effect to or not is, thus,
\nrequired  to be judged on its own without reference to the circular issued by
\nthe Commissioner of Excise.  Cassus Omissus, it is well known, cannot be
\nsupplied by the court. [See  P.T. Rajan vs.  T.P.M. Sahir and Others<\/a>  (2003)
\n8 SCC 498]<\/p>\n
We have noticed hereinbefore that despite the fact that the order of
\ninjunction was issued by the High Court while modifying the interim order
\non 7.3.2005, the State was asked not to publish the selection list.  The
\ncontentions raised in the petitions for grant of special leave to appeal,
\nhowever, leave no manner of doubt that such selection list whether in
\nviolation of the order of the High Court or otherwise had been published.  If
\nthe said rules are considered to be retrospective, admittedly, the affidavits
\nhad not been filed on the next day of such selection and, thus, the rules are
\nnot capable of being implemented.\n<\/p>\n
Different situations may arise in different cases in the matter of grant
\nof injunction as was noticed by this Court in  Deoraj vs. State of
\nMaharashtra and Others<\/a> [(2004) 4 SCC 697] stating :\n<\/p>\n
“12. Situations emerge where the granting of an interim
\nrelief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself.
\nAnd then there may be converse cases where withholding
\nof an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of the
\nmain petition itself; for, by the time the main matter
\ncomes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be
\nallowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings
\nmay be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a
\nvery strong prima facie case  of a standard much
\nhigher than just prima facie case, the considerations of
\nbalance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully
\ntilting the balance of the case totally in favour of the
\napplicant may persuade the court to grant an interim
\nrelief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself.
\nOf course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The
\ncourt would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied
\nthat withholding of it would prick the conscience of the
\ncourt and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in
\ninjustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at
\nthe end the court would not be able to vindicate the cause
\nof justice. Obviously such would be rare cases
\naccompanied by compelling circumstances, where the
\ninjury complained of is immediate and pressing and
\nwould cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties
\nshall also have to be seen and the court may put the
\nparties on such terms as may be prudent.”\n<\/p>\n
Even the manner in which the interim order of this Court is given
\neffect leaves a lot to be desired.  It is not in dispute that the order of this
\nCourt dated 8.4.2005 was communicated on 9.4.2005. 10.4.2005 was a
\nSunday and, therefore, it was not expected that the services of the public
\nnotary would be available, or the  stamp would be available on that day for
\naffirming affidavits.  The affidavit filed on behalf of the State clearly shows
\nthat on 09.04.2005 itself , that is the day on which the order by this Court
\nwas communicated, the concerned persons were informed as regard their
\nselection, if not prior thereto.  The State’s letter dated 9.4.2005 relating to
\nApplication No.01010140 shows that thereby one Ramesh Prasad Dheemar
\nwas informed that he had been selected for Desi\/English wine shop\/Circle
\nTikrapara Circle as a first licensee.  Even the unnecessary stipulations had
\nnot been scored out therefrom.  He was not asked to file an affidavit by
\n10.4.2005.  He was merely asked to deposit 1\/12th part of the payable duty as
\nyearly security  within three days and 1\/12th part of yearly licence fee by
\n30.4.2005, whereafter licence was to be granted to him. We fail to
\nunderstand as to how without making a scrutiny as regard compliance of
\nconditions, licences were  granted  on 11.4.2005 and 12.4.2005.  The
\naffidavit of the State reveals :\n<\/p>\n
“That the process of selection of Applicants under
\nthe Circular dated 14.2.2005 had already been completed
\non 16.3.2005 and a list of the Applicants selected after
\nthe draw of lotteries had been submitted before the
\nHon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court on 22.3.2005.  A typed
\ncopy of the list of successful Applicants as submitted
\nbefore the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court is annexed
\nhereto and marked as Annexure “RCG-2”.\n<\/p>\n
That, accordingly based on the result of the
\nselection process, the Collectors of all Districts in the
\nState called upon the selected Applicants to submit
\naffidavit in the prescribed format.  The affidavits
\nsubmitted were duly processed\/scrutinized by the District
\nLevel Committee constituted in each district as per Rule
\n10 of the 2002 Rules (comprising of the Collector as the
\nChairman and Assistant Commissioner\/District Excise
\nOfficer as the Member Secretary).  The licences were
\nthereafter granted on 11.4.2005\/12.4.2005 subject to the
\ncondition that the same were only temporary and were
\ngranted under an interim arrangement and were subject to
\nfurther orders to be passed by this Hon’ble Court.  Thus,
\nthe temporary licences for the year 2005-06 for running
\ncountry\/foreign liquor retail shops in the State have been
\nissued after following the process prescribed in the 2002
\nRules and after scrutiny of affidavits and consequent
\napproval by the Committee already formed under the
\nRules, as had been directed by this Hon’ble Court.  An
\nEnglish translated copies of the information received
\nfrom each of the 16 districts in the State granting
\ntemporary licences to the successful Applicants is
\nenclosed hereto and filed as Annexure “RCG-3 (Colly.)”.\n<\/p>\n
We have noticed hereinbefore that even in the notice, the selected
\ncandidates had not been asked to submit affidavits  in the prescribed format.
\nIt is not expected of the statutory functionaries to ask the selected candidates
\nto comply with the requirements orally. It is beyond our comprehension as to
\nwhy such a post haste action was taken by the State.\n<\/p>\n
Our attention has been drawn to the following charts prepared by the
\nRespondents :\n<\/p>\n
\t“EXAMPLES OF SAME ADDRESS OF DIFFERENT FAKE
\nSELECTED APPLICANTS OF RAIGARH, CHAMPA JANJGIR AND
\nKAWARDHA DISTRICTS  <\/p>\n
3, Shankar Nagar
\nRaipur
\nNear Dr Anoop
\nVerma, Katora
\nTalab, Civil
\nLines, Raipur
\nBehind Prince
\nHotel, Katora
\nTalab, Civil
\nLines Raipur
\n27, Kholi
\nVikas
\nNagar,
\nBilaspur
\nH. No.15\/262
\nNear Chandnia
\nPara, Canal,
\nJanjgir
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\n77<\/span>
\nRaj Kr.\n<\/p>\n
Singh
\n79<\/span>
\nRajendra
\nPrajapati
\n222<\/span>
\nVikas
\nJaiswal
\n82<\/span>
\nRakesh
\nSingh
\n86<\/span>
\nRam
\nBachan
\nYadav
\n78<\/span>
\nMunna
\nGupta
\n84<\/span>
\nSurendra
\nLal
\n87<\/span>
\nJitendra
\nSingh
\n82<\/span>
\nBabloo
\nKr. Rai
\n88<\/span>
\nSantosh
\nKumar
\n78<\/span>
\nJai
\nPrakash
\nSingh
\n90<\/span>
\nShiv
\nNarayan
\nJaiswal<\/p>\n
259<\/span>
\nUrmila
\nDevi
\n220<\/span>
\nJitendr
\nSingh
\n80<\/span>
\nGuddu
\nMoar<\/p>\n
260<\/span>
\nSatish
\nSingh
\n222<\/span>
\nVinay
\nGupta
\n81<\/span>
\nRaghven
\ndra
\nKumar
\nSingh <\/p>\n
258<\/span>
\nVinod
\nPandey<\/p>\n
258<\/span>
\nAvadh
\nNarayan
\nShukla<\/p>\n
258<\/span>
\nShyam
\nLal
\nGupta<\/p>\n
259<\/span>
\nJagdish
\nYadav<\/p>\n
259<\/span>
\nBunty
\nSingh<\/p>\n
Jamat Mandir
\nPara,
\nKavardha
\n30, Block B,
\nQuarter
\nMohalla, RSB
\nTower,
\nTaarbahar,
\nBilaspur
\nLochan Nagar,
\nP.S.\n<\/p>\n
Chakradhar
\nNagar, Dist.\n<\/p>\n
Raigarh
\nPunjabi
\nColony, Dayal
\nBand, Bilaspur
\nNehru Nagar,
\nBilaspur
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\n79<\/span>
\nPramod
\nSingh
\n91<\/span>
\nParikha
\nPaswan
\n92<\/span>
\nAshok
\nKumar
\nSingh
\n93<\/span>
\nSurjit
\nSingh
\nBhatia
\n80<\/span>
\nSushil
\nKumar
\n83<\/span>
\nShailend
\nra  Singh
\n222<\/span>
\nStayend
\ner Singh
\n92<\/span>
\nLakshmi
\nPrasad
\n94<\/span>
\nRavindr
\nNath
\nUpadhy
\na
\n80<\/span>
\nManoj
\nSingh
\n85<\/span>
\nSantosh
\nKumar<\/p>\n
Shiv
\nNarayan
\nJaiswal
\n227<\/span>
\nUmesh
\nSingh
\n258<\/span>
\nDharme
\nmdra
\nSingh<\/p>\n
223<\/span>
\nMunna
\nSingh<\/p>\n
H.No.7\/279
\nPursuram Ward
\nFCI Gowdown
\nBhatapara,
\nRaipur
\nShankar Nagar,
\nDist. Janjgir
\n1\/73, Near
\nRanjit Singh
\nDhaba,
\nShivrinarayan,
\nTehsil
\nNavagarh, Dist.\n<\/p>\n
Janjgir
\n5\/12, Bazar
\nPara, Dhara
\nDwar, Dist.\n<\/p>\n
Janjgir Chanpa
\nH. No.190 Pratap
\nGanj Thana
\nSarngarh,
\nRaigarh
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\nPg
\nNames
\n85<\/span>
\nSanjiv
\nKumar
\nGupta
\n83<\/span>
\nRaja
\nPiyush
\nNarayan
\n83<\/span>
\nMahendr
\na Singh
\n228<\/span>
\nParmesh
\nwar
\nSingh
\n228<\/span>
\nSantosh
\nKr. Singh
\n87<\/span>
\nDashrat
\nYadav
\n92<\/span>
\nKamakh
\nya
\nNarayan
\nSingh
\n91<\/span>
\nArvind
\nSingh
\n228<\/span>
\nSantu
\nSingh
\n229<\/span>
\nDilipdas
\n222<\/span>
\nSanjiv
\nKr.\n<\/p>\n
90<\/span><\/p>\n
84<\/span><\/p>\n
Lakshmi
\nPd
\nGupta<\/p>\n
224<\/span>
\nVishnu
\nSingh<\/p>\n
226<\/span>
\nUday
\nSingh<\/p>\n
227<\/span>
\nAbhima
\nnu
\nGupta<\/p>\n
From a perusal of the aforementioned charts, it would appear that different persons
\nbelonging to different communities had filed different applications showing the
\nsame address.  Even persons having the same name had filed more than one
\napplication.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Desai submitted that  these allegations give rise to separate cause of
\nactions.  We do not agree.\n<\/p>\n
\tAlthough we do not intend to put a seal of finality on the said issue,
\nwe are constrained to observe that having regard to the actions of the
\nstatutory functionaries, the entire exercise of the scrutiny as regard
\nascertainment of the eligibility of the candidates vis-`-vis selection process
\nis required to be undertaken  again by the Selection Committee.
\nFurthermore, this Court is entitled to take into consideration subsequent
\nevents so as to do the complete justice to the parties. [See Board of Control
\nfor Cricket, India & Anr. Vs.  Netaji Cricket Club & Ors.  [2005 (1) SCALE
\n121].   When this Court passed an interim order it was expected that the
\nstatutory requirements therefore, shall be complied with.  Even if Rule 9 is
\nheld to be directory, substantial compliance thereof was necessary. A
\nmandatory statute requires strict compliance whereas a directory statute
\nrequires substantial compliance.  Even if a statute is directory, the State
\ncannot say that the requirements contained therein do not envisage
\ncompliance thereof.  The authorities of the State cannot raise a plea that they
\nwould not even notice the inherent defects contained in the application.
\nThey could not proceed on a presupposition,  for which there is no legal
\nsanction, that contents of the affidavit would be correct.  No summary report
\nrequired to be prepared by the Member Secretary for its placement before
\nthe Committee appears to have not been prepared.  The Rules  postulate that
\neach and every application must be examined carefully.  Mere fact that a
\nlarge number of applications have been filed, as a result whereof the State
\nhad been able to obtain crores and crores of rupees by itself did not entitle
\nthe State to dispense with the statutory requirements.  The application fees
\nwere not meant to be utilized for the purpose of earning revenue but to meet
\nthe administrative charges required therefore.  Application fees cannot be
\nequated with tax.\n<\/p>\n
Undoubtedly, the state has the exclusive privilege to deal in liquor but
\nit has also to be borne in mind that it has a constitutional and legal duty to
\nsafeguard the public interest and public health. The conditions for grant of
\nlicence as laid down in the statute are required to be observed only with a
\nview to sub serve the constitutional goal and not to subverse the same.\n<\/p>\n
An affidavit  required to be filed in whatever format it may be must
\ndisclose all the informations required under the law which would enable the
\nstatutory authorities to verify the same.  Licences to deal in liquor cannot be
\ngranted on  mere asking by a person and only because he is in a position to
\nfulfil the requirements as regard deposit of licence fee and other charges.
\nUndoubtedly, the State is entitled to raise its revenue but it is also obligated
\nto fulfil its constitutional and statutory duties.\n<\/p>\n
PRECEDENTS  RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS :\n<\/p>\n
In the Nandlal Jaiswal (supra),  whereupon  Mr. Desai placed strong
\nreliance, this Court was concerned with grant of licences for running
\ndistilleries.  Therein, this Court observed that the legislature should be
\nallowed some play in the joints because it has to deal with complex problems
\nbut it did not say that a statutory authority while exercising its statutory
\nfunctions may do away with or dilute the statutory mandates.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn G.J. Fernandez (supra), again this Court was interpreting the
\nconditions of NIT and not the statutory rules.  It is only in the fact situation
\nobtaining therein it was observed that the way in which the tender
\ndocuments issued by it had been understood and implemented by the KPC
\nhad been explained in its ‘note’, which sets out the general procedure which
\nthe KPC was following in regard to NITs issued by it from time to time.
\nThe said decision has no application in a case requiring compliance of
\nstatutory requirements.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra),  this Court was concerned
\nwith interpretation of an election of the Bihar Legislative Council Members
\n(Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1994.  While considering
\nthe submission that an  affidavit which is required to be filed in terms of sub-
\nrule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules, the Court  held that the provisions thereof are
\nnot  so mandatory in nature that even a slight infraction of the Rules would
\nrender the entire proceedings initiated by the Chairman invalid or without
\njurisdiction.  It was in that sense the provisions were  held to be directory in
\nnature.  We may notice that in terms of the Civil Procedure (Amendment)
\nAct, 2002, a plaint must be verified by an affidavit, which is mandatory in
\nnature.\n<\/p>\n
In Nain Sukh Das (supra) this Court was concerned with a case where
\nthe election of the municipal member was sought to be set aside on the
\nground of alleged violation of Article 15(1) of the Constitution. In that case
\nit was held that the petitioners therein never asserted their rights by taking
\nappropriate proceedings to get the bar under Article 15(1) removed and in
\nthat situation, this the Court did not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32
\nof the Constitution stating:\n<\/p>\n
“It may be, as we have already remarked, that the
\npetitioners could claim such relief as rate-payers of the
\nMunicipality in appropriately framed proceedings, but
\nthere is not question of enforcing petitioners’
\nfundamental right under article 15(1) or article 14 in such
\nclaim. There is still less ground for seeking relief on that
\nbasis against respondent 3 who is only a nominated
\nmember”\n<\/p>\n
The said decision has no application in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
In K.N. Guruswamy (supra), the appellant therein sought to enforce
\nhis right in obtaining a contract to which he was entitled to but no relief was
\ngranted as the excise year had already expired. Issuance of such a writ was
\nfound to be resulting in futility.   Such is not the case herein.\n<\/p>\n
In Rajendra Singh  (supra),  this Court held that the jurisdiction of the
\nHigh Court under Article 226 is not intended to facilitate avoidance of
\nobligations voluntarily incurred, though the licensees are not precluded from
\nseeking to enforce the statutory provisions governing the contract.\n<\/p>\n
The writ petitioners herein filed a writ at a pre-selection stage and
\nfurthermore have not sought for enforcement of the contract.\n<\/p>\n
In Balco Employees’ Union  (supra), this Court was concerned with
\nan economic policy of the State which is not the case herein.\n<\/p>\n
Furthermore, it is now beyond any cavil  that economic policies of the
\nState although ordinarily would not be interfered with, but the same is not
\nbeyond the pale of judicial review. [See Cellular Operators Association of
\nIndia and Others vs. Union of India & Others<\/a>  (2003) 3 SCC 186]<\/p>\n
\tIt is also not a case where no relief can be granted to the writ
\npetitioners, as was done in the case of K.N. Guruswamy (supra), having
\nregard to the fact situation obtaining therein.\n<\/p>\n
SHOULD WE ISSUE GUIDELINES :\n<\/p>\n
Before parting, we make it clear that in these appeals we did not go
\ninto the larger question raised by Dr. Dhawan that the State must insist for a
\nsolvency certificate keeping in view the similar provisions contained in the
\nstatutes enacted by the other States, nor this Court, as at present advised, is
\ninclined to issue the requisite guidelines therefor.\n<\/p>\n
There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute that having regard to
\nthe several decisions of this Court, e.g.  The State of Bombay vs. R.M.D.
\nChamarbaugwala<\/a> [(1957)  SCR 874], M\/s Fatehchand Himmatlal and Others
\netc. vs. State of Maharashtra etc. [(1977) 2 SCC 670], Khoday Distilleries
\nLtd. and Others   vs. State of Karnataka and Others<\/a> [(1995) 1 SCC 574],
\nB.R. Enterprises etc. vs. State of U.P. and Others etc. [(1999) 9 SCC 700],
\nState of A.P. and Others vs. Mcdowell & Company and Others<\/a> [(1996) 3
\nSCC 709], State of Punjab and Another vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.
\nand Another<\/a> [(2004) 11 SCC 26], trade in liquor is considered to be res extra
\ncommercium although tobacco produce has not been declared so. [See
\nGodawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and
\nOthers<\/a> [(2004) 7 SCC 68].  The State while exercising its power of parting
\nwith its exclusive privilege to deal in liquor has a positive obligation that any
\nactivity therein strictly conforms to the public interest and ensures public
\nhealth, welfare and safety.  Strict adherence to the requirement to comply
\nwith the statutory provisions must be considered from that angle.\n<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION  :\n<\/p>\n
The question, however, which now falls for consideration is as to
\nwhat order should be passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this case  the mode of selection is in question.  All the parties
\nparticipated in the selection process. Some of them became successful.  They
\nhad not complied with the statutory requirements not because they were not
\nwilling to do so but because the statutory authorities were not correctly
\nadvised.  The conduct of the statutory authorities although must be
\ndeprecated but that by itself, in our opinion, may not come in the way of the
\nsuccessful candidates in getting the just relief.\n<\/p>\n
\tKeeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we
\nintend to issue the following directions :\n<\/p>\n
i)\tThe Member Secretary shall scrutinize all the applications of the
\nsuccessful candidates afresh and prepare a summary report within one
\nweek from date.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tIrrespective of the format prescribed by the Commissioner of Excise,
\neach of the selected candidates must file an appropriate affidavit,
\nwhich would be in strict compliance of the requirement of Rule 9.\n<\/p>\n
iii)\t Such affidavits must be filed before the respective committees within
\none week from date, the contents whereof  would be verified in terms
\nof Order 6 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code.  The said affidavits
\nshall be scrutinized by the Committee so as to enable them to arrive at
\na finding as to whether the applicants fulfil the eligibility criteria and
\nare otherwise suitable for grant of licence under the Act and the rules.\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tThe writ petitioners or any other person in the locality may file
\nappropriate applications before the said Committee with a view to
\nshow that the selected candidates do not fulfill the eligibility criteria
\nor are debarred or are otherwise unsuitable from obtaining a licence
\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n
v)\tSuch objections may also be filed within two weeks from date.  The
\nCommittee may consider the said objections and, if necessary, may
\ncall for further or better particulars from the selected candidates so as
\nto satisfy themselves about their eligibility etc.<\/p>\n
vi)\tThe respective District Level Committees shall strictly verify and
\nscrutinize the affidavits as also other documents furnished by the said
\napplicants so as to arrive at a decision that the statutory requirements
\nhave been complied with upon application of their mind.\n<\/p>\n
vii)\tThe members of the Committee are made personally liable to see that
\nall statutory requirements are complied with.  They would strictly
\napply the statutory provisions as regard eligibility and suitability of
\nthe candidates.\n<\/p>\n
viii)\tThe aforementioned exercise by the Committee should be completed
\nwithin one month.  In the event, any affidavit filed by a selected
\ncandidate either pursuant to this order or filed earlier in the format
\nprescribed by the Commissioner of Excise is found to be incorrect,
\nstrict action in accordance with law shall be taken against him<\/p>\n
ix)\tThe Superintendent of Police of each district within whose
\njurisdiction the selected candidates ordinarily reside shall verify the
\nantecedents and other relevant particulars of the selected candidates
\nvis-`-vis their eligibility\/suitability  to obtain a licence and submit a
\nreport to the Committee by 12.6.2005 which would be strictly  in
\nterms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9.  While issuing such a certificate in
\nfavour of the selected candidates by 12.6.2005, he  shall also file a
\ncopy of the report before the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
x)\tWe direct the Chief Secretary of the State and Commissioner of
\nExcise to act strictly in accordance with law and oversee the
\nfunctioning of the Scrutiny Committees.\n<\/p>\n
xi)\tIf the State and the  Commissioner of Excise come  across
\nmisconduct on the part of any of the officers including the members
\nof the Committee, strict action must be taken against the concerned
\nofficer.\n<\/p>\n
xii)\tThe selected candidates in the meanwhile may carry on the trade in
\nliquor pursuant to the licence granted in their favour but the same
\nshall be subject to this order as also the decision of the Scrutiny
\nCommittee.\n<\/p>\n
The Writ Petitioners and the Respondents shall be at liberty to
\nmention before the High Court for  appropriate order(s).\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals are disposed of on the aforementioned terms.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3279 of 2005 PETITIONER: Ashok Lanka & Anr. RESPONDENT: Rishi Dixit & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2005 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAshok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005 - 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\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-08T02:17:04+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=\"59 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-08T02:17:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005\"},\"wordCount\":11825,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005\",\"name\":\"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-08T02:17:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005 - 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\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-08T02:17:04+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":"59 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005","datePublished":"2005-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-08T02:17:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005"},"wordCount":11825,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005","name":"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-08T02:17:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-lanka-anr-vs-rishi-dixit-ors-on-11-may-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/87337","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=87337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87337\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}