A VARADHARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters are filed assailing the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 as amended by Act 31 of 2003, which was preceded by Ordinance No.8 of 2003.

(2.) Since last two decades the wholesale business in Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) was being conducted by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) and the privilege of retail vending was being conferred on the individuals on application and complying with such formalities as were prescribed every year. Co-operative Societies were also entrusted with retail trade to some extent. We need not go into those details and suffice it to state the events from 2001, as this litigation traces to the period commencing from excise year 2001-2002. Changing the excise policy of the preceding year 2000-2001, G.O.Ms.Nos.113 and 115, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 22.06.2001 were issued creating a block period of 3 years from 2001 to 2004. The difference between yearly lease and block period lease is that while the yearly lease expires soon after the end of the excise year, the lease relating to block period will not lapse ipso facto and the licensees have got a right of renewal subject to payment of increase in privilege amount for the 2nd and 3rd years, as prescribed therefor. Applications were called for and according to the procedure prescribed, lots were drawn and successful tenderers have taken up shops for retail vending. 6000 retail vending shops were identified and later on Government increased it to 7000 during November 2001, which was questioned by the licensees in this Court, but unsuccessfully. Then came the Excise year 2002-2003, and this time the Government wanted to change the policy discontinuing the block period and also re-categorised and re-classified the shops for the purpose of augmenting more revenue. The licensees of the previous year, who had opted for block period were not granted renewal as of right, but were sought to be subjected to fresh drawal, ignoring their rights for block period. Writ petitions were filed questioning the action of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.128, 129 and 130, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 08.07.2002, which formulated the new policy and this Court by Judgment dated 24.07.2002 has upheld the increase in shops, the re-categorisation and re-classification which aimed at mobilising more financial resources, but set at naught the policy of not renewing the licences of the block period licensees who were willing to pay even the enhanced licence fee and accommodating more shops than notified earlier. The Government went in appeal to the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.14735 of 2002, but by its Judgment dated 22.08.2002 the Supreme Court, affirmed the Judgment rendered by this Court slightly modifying the relief portion. While this Court issued mandamus to renew the licences of the block period, the Supreme Court modified the same by directing the Government to consider the renewal on the basis of findings recorded. But, material part of the Judgment rendered by this Court that the block period cannot be disturbed subject to payment of the privilege amount by the licensees was upheld. Thereafter, there was another controversy as the Government had renewed the licences of the block period to the extent of only 296 persons who have remitted the entire privilege amount by 31.07.2002. In the Judgment rendered by this Court on 24.07.2002 a direction was given to remit the whole of the privilege amount by 31.07.2002 for entitling the renewal. Therefore, litigation in W.P.No.34090 of 2002 and batch had erupted as most of the licensees were remitting the privilege amount for 15 days and that was in three spells of 15 days each, because of the issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.176, 180 and 189, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 30.07.2002, 12.08.2002 and 29.08.2002 respectively. The dispute then raised by the Government was that such licensees other than 296 are not entitled for renewal as the amounts were not remitted in full within the time limit stipulated by this Court i.e., 31.07.2002. But, the plea of the said licensees was that they were ready to deposit the entire privilege amount, but the Government had issued instructions in the above mentioned Governmental Orders to receive the amounts only for 15 days, which was extended twice on the plea of the pendency of its appeal before the Supreme Court. This Court had accepted the said plea of the licensees and by its Judgment dated 25.09.2003 issued directions to Government to receive the balance of the amount by 30.9.2002 after making adjustments of the amounts remitted earlier and then renew the period of licences. The Government had again questioned the said order in the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.19277 of 2002, and the Supreme Court on 13.11.2002, modifying the Judgment of this Court, passed the following Order.

(3.) Excise Year 2002-2003 had to lapse on 15th September 2003, but it was extended till 22nd October and again to 16th November and then finally to 28th November, 2003. Meanwhile, for the excise year 2003-2004, policy was evolved by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.243, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 04.10.2003. Now, the system of selection by drawal of lots is given a go-by, by inviting applications under selection method on the basis of merits of the respective candidates taking into consideration the following criteria;- <FRM>B.25.527.1205.htm</FRM>