R RAVICHANDRAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 1.9.1999 in Writ Petition Nos.12717 of 1999 etc.

(2.) THE appellants participated in the auction held for the year 1998-99 for grant of licence for running Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) shops and the licences were granted in their-names for running shops in their respective notified area. THE licensees have been given liberty to renew the licence for the next year, on payment of the original licence fee plus 15 per cent enhancement and all these appellants have accordingly renewed their licences for the year 1999-2000, by paying the enhanced licence fee. Some of the licensees who had been given licence to run IMFL shops for the year 1998-99 did not renew their licence for the year 1999-2000. THEre are about 4700 retail vending IMFL shops and only 3721 licensees had renewed their shops for the year .1999-2000. THE respondents, therefore, took steps to re-auction these shops and the original licensees were also permitted to have their shops, in the re-notified areas. On 18.6.1999, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise issued orders to the effect that the non-renewed shops and unsold shops in one notified area could be shifted to another notified area subject to certain conditions. THE conditions were that the area to which the unsold shop is to be shifted should not have any shop and if the proposed area has shop, it should be ensured that the existing licensees of the proposed area should have no objection. It was also made a condition that the upset price of the shops transferred should be determined based on the privilege amount plus 15 per cent of the shop of the original place or the privilege amount plus 15 per cent of the shop which was not renewed in a place proposed to the shifting, whichever is higher. Pursuant to these orders, some shops were put on auction and the licensees were given new notified areas to have their IMFL shops. THE appellants in these appeals contended that allowing these licensees to have their shops in the new notified area would seriously prejudice the business prospects of the appellants. It was contended by the appellants that they renewed the licences for the year 1999-2000 as they were aware that there would not be any shops near their place of business and if the neighbouring area is declared as notified area and fresh licensees are allowed to start business there, the appellants' business would be seriously affected. THEy also contended that the 5th respondent passed the impugned order for extraneous reasons and Rule 34 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules 1989 has been used for colourable exercise of power. THE appellants also contended that the order passed by the 5th respondent is bad on account of the principles of promissory estoppel.

(3.) THE area was notified by invoking these provisions and permission was given to have the IMFL shops within that area. THE appellants have no case that the respondents have no such power. THEir only contention in that the impugned order should not have been passed as it adversely affects their business and they plead the principle of promissory estoppel.