STATE OF KERALA Vs. G.S.KESHAVA MOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has a checkered history. The appellant is the State of Kerala. The respondents herein filed an application for licence to start a distillery to manufacture alcohol. At the relevant time, the Molasses Control Order, 1961 was in force. Therefore, nobody could manufacture alcohol from molasses without appropriate licence in that regard. The respondents obtained Ext.P1 licence from the appellant for the manufacture of spirit. But, the State imposed a condition that the respondent shall manufacture spirit only from non-molasses or such base as may from time to time be permitted by the Commissioner of Excise. Subsequently, the Molasses Control Order was withdrawn by the Central Government. There upon the appellant filed an application before the Government for permission to manufacture alcohol from molasses using Ext.P1 licence. That was rejected by the Government. The respondents filed O.P.No. 21259/1999, in which a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Government to consider the representation filed by the respondent in that regard. The Government again considered the application of the respondent and rejected the same by Ext.P6 order. The respondents again challenged Ext.P6 order by filing O.P.No.721/2000. A learned Single judge of this Court again directed the Government to reconsider the request of the respondent by Ext.P7 judgment. The Government again reconsidered it and passed Ext.P8 order again rejecting the request. The respondents filed O.P No.24103 of 2013 challenging Ext.P8 order seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions of the parties held that the Government cannot now reject the request of the respondent after having suffered Ext.P7 judgment, wherein inter alia it has been held thus:

(3.) IN answer, the learned counsel for the respondents would point out that in Ext.P1, the condition is that the spirit must be manufactured from non- molasses or such base as may from time to time be permitted by the Commissioner of Excise. Therefore, the question of the so called policy decision of the Government, not to issue any licences does not come into the picture at all, since the name tapioca is not even mentioned in Ext.P1. It is further submitted that, these issues had already been considered by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, which has become final. That being so, the State is estopped from now contenting that the State will not issue permission to the petitioner to use molasses as a base for manufacturing alcohol. It is the further contention of the counsel for the respondents that, under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951, the alcohol manufacturing industry had been brought under the direct control of the Central Government and only the Central Government can issue licences or permits to manufacture alcohol in the whole country. As such, the appellants cannot take a policy decision in respect of manufacturing alcohol as claimed by them and consequently, in view of the first condition of Ext.P1 licence, it is perfectly open to the appellant to seek the permission of the commissioner to use molasses as the base for manufacturing alcohol. The appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Others V.State of U.P. and Others 1990 KHC 701 and the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 25535/2007 upholding the absolute jurisdiction of the Union of India in the matter of controlling the alcohol industry in the country. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the appellants that they have taken a policy decision not to issue any licences at all for manufacturing alcohol in the State and consequently, they cannot now deny the appellant permission to use molasses as the base for manufacturing alcohol in accordance with Ext.P1 licence, is the contention of the respondents.