EMBASSY RESTAURANT Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for deterniination in this writ petition is whether Rule 18, Delhi Liquor Licence Rules 1976 is constitutionally valid. The petitioners carry on the trade of running restaurants at Connaught Place, New Delhi. Embassy, Gaylord, Kwality, Standard and Volga are five restaurants alongwith their (owners who have impugned the validity of Rule 18. They have sought a direction for striking down the said Rule as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to issue liquor licences (Bar licences) in favour of the petitioners in form L-5 for sale of foreign liquor and Indian Made Foreign Liquors to their customers and licence in form L-4 for retail vend of beer for the consumption at their restaurants.

(2.) The petitioners' case is that four out of the five Restaurants held bar licences till the year 1956. Thes- licences were issued under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short the Act ') as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi and the Rules of 1935 made thereunder. They say that sometime in the late 50's, the Government of India decided to enforce prohibition in Delhi. A prohibition policy aimed at disallowing drinking in public was accordingly drawn up and the first step taken in the process was to withdraw all bar licences held by independent restaurants as well as bars in the hotels. The licences held by the aforesaid four restaurants were accordingly withdrawn. In so far as hotels are concerned, licences held by them in Form L J were allowed to operate and the hotel keepers were allowed to serve liquor to their guests in their rooms. Since 1956 these restaurants are without bar licences. The result is their customers cannot be served liquor. The petitioners' claim that with the change of circumstances, the existing excise policy of not granting liquor licences to restaurants like the petitioners has become arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They say that holder of licence in form L-5 can serve liquor to everybody whether Indian or foreigner, resident of Hotel or non-resident and, therefore, now no distinction can legally be made in the matter of grant of licence in form L-5. As such it is claimed, that Rule it which provides that licence in form L-5 for retail vend of Foreign Liquor in a bar, may, only be granted to the holder of a licence in form L-3 for the retail vend of foreign liquor in a hotel or a restaurant is constitutionally invalid. In sum and substance the challenge is to the Excise policy of the respondents reflected in Rule 18 which renders persons other than those who are holding L-3 licences ineligible for grant of licence in form L-5. According to this policy petitioners are ineligible for grant of licence in form L-5 and only Hotels are eligible for grant of licence in form L-5 on the strength of their licence in form L-3.

(3.) The liquor licences are granted under Rules framed by the Lt. Governor by virtue of power conferred on him by Section 58 of the Act. It is clear from various provisions of the Act that the State has exclusive right to manufacture or sell intoxicants. There is no dispute that the Act deals with not only with the matter of excise revenue but also with regulation and control of import, export, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of liquor. The policy of the Act is thus clear that the objects to be achieved are not confined merely to the collection of excise revenue but it is intended to regulate and control liquor in almost all its aspects, and that obviously is with a view not only to safeguard the matter of collection of excise revenue but also in public interest. Only prescribed quantity of liquor can be possessed (Section 5). Import, export and transport are subject to licence and pass (Sections 16, 18 and 19). The manufacture of liquor is controlled (Section 20). so also its possession (Sec. 24), and sale (Sec. 26). The sale of liquor to soldiers is circumscribed (Sec. 21?), its sale is prohibited to those under 25 years of age (Sec. 29) and employment of women on premises with the licence to seU liquor is prohibited (Sec. 30). All these measures of regulation and control.are apparent indication that they are in public interest (See: Prithpal Singh v. Chief Commissioner & Ors., 1965 Supplement Punjab Law Reporter Page 183).