STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. C VADIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein filed W. P. No. 6568 of 1981 praying for the issue of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records relating to the Proceedings of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in Rc.G1/12852/81 dated 8-8-1981 and quashing the same and also for further directing the State of Tamil Nadu and the Com, missioner of Prohibition and Excise to grant the privilege for supply of arrack by wholesale in the district of Periyar for the year 1981-82, under the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Supply by Wholesale), Rules, 1981.

(2.) The respondent herein had put in an application in response to a Notification dated 4-5-1981 calling for applications for grant of Privilege and Supply in wholesale arrack to declare in Periyar District. The said application was filed on 17-5-1981 after complying with all the necessary formalities and also making the necessary deposit of Rupees 30,000, as required -by the Rules. Besides the respondent herein, eleven others also had put in their applications. There was a personal hearing of all the applications on 27-6-1981 and 2-7-1981. Among the persons who had put in applications, two did not appear for the personal enquiry. The Commissioner of Prohibition after making a personal enquiry recommended the respondent for the grant of the license. As per R. 6 (a) of the, said Rules the prior approval of the Government has to be obtained by the Commissioner of Prohibition before the issue of the license. The Government rejected the recommendation of the Commissioner of Prohibition stating that the respondent is already doing money-lending business and that it may not be possible for him to devote full attention to deal with the wholesale business in arrack in Periyar District. The Commissioner of Prohibition in his proceedings dated 8-8-1981 in Rc No. 12852/81 has rejected the application of the respondent herein and communicated the same to him. The said order was received by the respondent on 14-8-1981. Questioning the said rejection, the respondent herein filed the writ petition.

(3.) In his affidavit filed in sup-port of the writ petition, the respondent herein contended that the Commissioner of Prohibition performed quasi-judicial functions in recommending the name of the respondent and that the Government cannot interfere by rejecting the recommendation of the Commissioner. He has further stated that the prior approval of the Government as envisaged by R. 6 (a) came to be introduced in the rules after the application had been submitted by the respondent and others for the grant of the licence. According to the respondent, the said amendment is not applicable to him and in any event it will not have any retrospective effect so as to get the prior approval of the State, of Tamil Nadu, Inasmuch as the State of Tamil Nadu had not given an opportunity to the respondent before it had reject ed the recommendation of the Commissioner, the rejection according to the respondent, is vitiated on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice. It was further contended that the Commissioner of Prohibition who has to act as a quasi-judicial functionary in considering the merits and demerits of the applicants for the grant of the licence cannot take any directions from the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the order of rejection has to be quashed. The reasoning given by the Government for rejecting the application of the respondent, according to the respondent. is irrelevant and the business of money lending cannot be taken as an adverse point in rejecting the application of the respondent. On the, other hand, the respondent stated, it is an additional Qualification since he would command necessary finance for the effective carrying on of the business in the wholesale trade of arrack. Finally the respondent prayed that the rejection made by the Government despite the recommendation made by the Commissioner of Prohibition is illegal and has to be quashed and a Writ of Mandamus has to be issued directing the grant of licence.