SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Sharma, J. The Excise Commissioner, U. P. invited tenders by notice dated 21-12-1995 from distilleries for supplying country liquor to the retail licensees m various districts for the year 1996-97. The petitioner, the respondent No. 4 and various other distilleries submitted their tenders. The Government accepted the tenders districtwise. Vide order dated 27-2-1996 the petitioner was allotted ten districts, whereas the respondent No. 4 was allotted only one district of Ghazipur for supplying country liquor. The allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 was subject to the condition that till it starts manufacturing country liquor, the petitioner will supply the liquor to district Ghazipur. Such a condition was imposed, because in the absence of affluent treatment plant the manufacturing of the country liquor in M/s P. V. K. Distillery (respondent No. 4) was stopped under the orders of the U. P. Pollution Control Board, dated 25-1-1993. By a letter dated 30-5-1996 of the Excise Commissioner/controller of Molasses, the respondent No. 4 was permitted to manufacture the country liquor from the rectified spirit produced by another distillery (Shamli Distillery ). By another letter, dated 19-6-1986 the petitioner has been asked by the District Excise Officer, Ghazipur not to supply liquor to district Ghazipur. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the said orders/letters dated 30-5-1996 and 19-6-1996. Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to supply the country liquor to the licensees in district Ghazipur till the respondent No. 4 starts actual production of rectified spirit, has also been sought.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions in support of the writ petition, namely, (i) the respondent No. 4 cannot be permitted to manufacture country liquor, because it is not open to a distillery, to manufacture country liquor from the rectified spirit produced by another distillery, and (ii) the respondent's distillery has been closed pursuant to the order of the Pollution Control Board dated 25. 1. 1993 and, therefore, it cannot manufacture the country liquor. Sri P. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 have disputed the above contentions.

(3.) THE word 'manufacture' has been defined by Section 3 (2) of the Act as under: "3. (2) - "manufacture" includes every process, whether natural or artificial, by which any intoxicant is produced or prepared, and also redisfiliation and every process for the rectification, flavouring, or blending or colouring of liquor. "