SATYA INDUSTRIES Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the amendment to Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Denatured Spirit and Denatured Spirituous Preparating Rules 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') in G.O.Ms No. 336, Revenue dated 24-3-1971, as null and void or in the alternative declaring the same as prospective in nature and direct the third respondent to renew the licence without insisting upon registration of the petitioner's unit with the Industries Department either as an Industry or as Small scale Industry, as the case may be.

(2.) The petitioner is a dealer in denatured spirits having three licences -(l)Wholesale licence in Form D S. VII, (2) Retail licence in Form D.S. IX, and (3) D.S. XI licerce for possession of denatured split to manufacture french polish, varnish thinners, metal polish, soaps and other denatured spirituous preparations and for industrial purposes, for more than ten years. These licences were granted to the petitioner even after the Excise Act (Act 8 of 1968 and the rules made thereunder) came into force and he has been renewing the licence under Rule 17 of the Rules. Till 1976 the third respondent has been renewing licences after being satisfied with the accounts submitted by the petitioner. But in 1976 the third respondent did not renew Form D S. XI licence though the petitioner submitted his application for the renewal of his licence affixing the requisite court fee one month in advance with the original challan in support of payment of annual licence fee. The petitioner was informed that the licence could not be renewed, because he did not register his unit with the Director of Industries under the amended Rule 12 of the Rules before he applied for D.S.XI licence. The petitioner, therefore, was aggrieved with the action of the third respondent in not renewing D.S.XI licence and hence he filed writ petition No. 45/79 questioning the action of the third respondent in not renewing his D.S.XI licence and in insisting upon the production of the Small Scale Industrial Registration Certificate. Prior to this writ petition, the petitioner fild writ petitions and obtained directions under which he was getting Form D.S.XI licence renewed every year from 1976. Our learned brother Jecvan Reddy, J., disposed of the writ petition No. 45/79 with a direction that the petitioner's application should be considered for the renewal of the licence in accordance with the rules and uninfluenced by the fact of registration or non-registration, as the case may be, under Small Scale Industries Registration Rules. Ihe Respondents were aggrieved with the orders in the writ petition and hence preferred writ appeal No. 142/1979. The petitioner contends that even in respect of D.S.VII and IX licences, the third respondent refused to renew till the disposal of the writ appeal. The petitioner, therefore, filed WP. No. 4736/1979, and obtained directions to the third respondent to issue permits under Rules 6 and 7 and accordingly the petitioner was given permits. But for the year 1979-80 the third respondent did not renew the licences. The petitioner contends that the amended Rule 12 does not apply to his case and hence there was no necessity for him to register his unit with the Director of Industries before he applies for renewal of his D.S.Xl licence. The petitioner also contends that the Excise Act is a self-contained Act and it gives power to the Government under Section 72 of the Act to frame rules covering the subject for the issuance of licences aud several other aspects connected with the intoxicants and hence the Government has no power to amend rule 12. He also contends that the amended rule 12 was not placed before both the Houses of the Legislature and hence it is null and void. He further contends that the amended rule has no retrospective effect and hence the third respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to insist on him to register his unit with the Director of Industries before applying for the renewal of D.S.Xl licence, for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80,

(3.) Opposing this petition, the respondents contend in their counter that the petitioner has not registered his unit with the Industries Department under the amended Rule 12 of the Rules before he applied for D.S.XI licence and hence the petitioner is not entitled to the renewal of licence. They further contend that the project officer (R.I.P.), Guntur informed that the denatured spirit allotted to his unit during August, 1974 was not utilised properly for which it was released and he requested the Director not to consider the renewal of the licence of the petitioner and the Director of Industries, therefore, wrote a letter No. 8743/DSDK/2/4/75 dated 20-1-1976, to the Excise Superintendent, Guntur requesting him not to renew D.S.Xl licence of the petitioner and hence the Excise Superintendent refused to renew the licence. The respondents, therefore, contend that the action of the third respondent in not renewing D.S.Xl licence of the petitioner is neither improper nor contrary to law, as the amended rule 12 is applicable to cases of renewal also. The respondents also contend that a licence under the Excise Act or the rules made thereunder is issued only for one year and the said licence has to be renewed from year to year, provided that all the conditions for issuance of licence are fully complied with by the licensee. They further contend that in the instant case, D.S.XI licence of the petitioner expired with the completion of the Excise Year and without registering his unit with the Industries Department he has applied for renewal and hence the renewal of the licence was not granted, It is true that the Excise Act is self-contained and it gives the power to the Government under Section 72 of the Act to frame rules covering the subject, for the issuance of licence and several other aspects connected with the possession, manufacture, sale, transport and otherwise dealing with the intoxicants. It is also true that the Excise Department has got full power under the Act to inspect and check the unit. But on that account the Government is not precluded from framing proper rules for further control and proper regulation and for avoiding malpractices and for giving powers to the Industries Department also for registration of the unit.