A MARIYAYEE Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions, the main question to be considered is the scope of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989.

(2.) UNDER Sec.17-C of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, it shall be lawful for the State Government to grant to any person or persons on such conditions and for such period as they may deem fit the exclusive of other privilege, (a) of manufacturing Indian Made foreign spirits, or (b) of selling by retail Indian made foreign spirits, within any local area.

(3.) AS against the said contention, learned counsel for landlords submitted that business in liquor is not a fundamental right, and the State only gives a privilege to sell the liquor on certain conditions, and those conditions are incorporated in the licence. Any person who intends to do business in liquor in whatever form it may be, has to satisfy those conditions. Under Sec. 17-C of the Act, the State Government is entitled to grant the privilege on such terms and conditions, and Sec.20 of the Act enables the State Government to issue permits and licences to any person, and under Sec.20-A the Licensing Authority is also bound to take into consideration various aspect which include such other matters as may be prescribed under the Rules and it is further said that under Sec.54(2)(a), the Government is further authorised to make rules for the issue of licences and Permits and the enforcement the canditions thereof. It is further contended that under Sec.55, all the Rules and Notifications made under the Act shall be deemed as if they are enacted in the Act itself. The sum and substance of the argument by learned Senior Counsel for the landlord is that the Rules and Forms which are statutory in nature form part of the parent Act itself, and when the State sells the privilege, it can dictate terms as conditions of the licence, taking into consideration the perilous nature of the business. According to them, the liquor business stands as a class by itself and the same cannot be identified or compared with any other business. Liquor being the property of the State, there cannot be any fundamental right vested with the person who intends to do the business, and there is also no scope for any argument on the ground of arbitrariness or discrimination in such cases. Any highest bidder in the auction and who satisfies the conditions of Rule 13, is entitled to do the business after getting the licence. While he participates in the auction, he knows that he has to satisfy the licensing conditions, and if he has to take the a lease agreement with the landlord, that condition also must be satisfied. It is further said that the argument that the tenant is a statutory tenant and is irremovable by virtue of the Rent Control Act cannot be read into the provisions of the Prohibition Act which is a special enactment. The landlord has got every right to dicide as to the nature of business that has to be conducted in his building and the Government has recognised only that right. It is also said that while passing this impugned Rule, the Government is aware about the rights of the tenants and also about irremovability under the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. In spite of knowledge of the Government about the statutory tenancy, if it has chosen to further declare that the lease agreement has to be produced, the Court cannot sit on the wisdom of the Legislature. It was further argued on behalf of the landlords that there are auction purchasers in places where even the Rent Control Act has no application or there are buildings belonging to the Local Authority or Public Corporations which are exempted from the purview of the Rent Control Legislation. To insist on the production of such an agreement for getting a licence is intended only for the purpose of showing that law is the same to all the auction purchasers. It is further said that while considering the scope of Art. 14 of the Constitution, the aim of the Act also will have to be considered. Liquor business is a social evil and the intention of the Legislature in passing the Prohibition Act is to curb the production, possession and use of liquor or intoxicating drug for all purposes other than medicinal, scientific, industrial or such like purposes. So, the consent of the landlord has to be viewed with the Scheme of the legislation. It is said that the various petitioners, who, with open eyes, participated in the bid, cannot be heard to contend that they are entitled to get licence de hors the Rules. The Rules are constitutionally valid.