RAMYA WINES Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .All the petitioners are holders of Form IL-24 licence issued under the A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970. By virtue of the licence granted to them, they are permitted to sell Indian liquor and Foreign Liquor (IML) in sealed or capsuled bottles in quantities not exceeding six quarts bottles (each of 750 ml) of all liquor other than Beer and 12 quarts bottles of beer at any time or in any single transaction. All the petitioners obtained licences for the year 2001-2002 valid from 1-3-2001 to 31-3-2002. At the time of renewal of their licence for the year 2002-2003 (from 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2003), the licensing authority issued a notification in accordance with the Government policy inviting applications for grant of lease of right to sell Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer in Retail at places mentioned in the list appended to the notification (in some cases such notifications were issued on 9-4-2002 or thereabout). Assailing the said notifications issued by the licensing authorities in various districts, the petitioners approached this Court challenging the policy of the State in allowing retail outlets in various mandals. In all the writ petitions, a Writ of Mandamus is sought for declaring the notifications issued by the licensing authority inviting applications for grant of new licences and also for declaring clauses 4 and 5 in G.O.Ms.No. 109 dated 11-3-2002 whereby and whereunder the Excise policy for the year 2002-2003 was notified (as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice.) As. common questions of law arise for consideration all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. For better understanding, the pleadings in W.P.No.5770 of 2002 may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner is the licensee of M/s. Ramya Wines. He was granted a licence on 31-3-1998, which was renewed from time to time. The licence was also renewed in April 2002 and the same is valid upto 31-3-2003. It is the case of petitioner that for the year 2002-2003, the Government announced the policy in G.O.Ms.No.109 Revenue (Ex.n) Department dated 11-3-2002 inter alia enhancing the licence fee from the existing rates i.e., from Rs. 2,85,000.00 to Rs.3,00,000.00 in places where the population does not exceed 10,000 and to Rs. 4,50,000/- in the areas where the population is between 10,001 and 50,000 and also allowing new shops/outlets one shop per mandal and as many shops as required based on the existing level of consumption of liquor in a unit i.e., a mandal. The policy also provides that if the licensee fails to lift liquor having minimum value (issue price) of at least six times the proportionate licence fee, the licence is liable for cancellation/non-renewal. The petitioner contends that it is contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as the relevant rules besides being irrational. The petitioner also alleges that after issue of G.O.Ms.No.109, the licensing authority is insisting to incorporate a condition in tune with clause (5) of G.O.Ms.No.109 in the counterpart agreement executed by the licensee at the time of renewal of the licence. It is also further alleged that if a new shop/ outlet is allowed, the petitioner has to suffer loss of sales and fall in business turnover which ultimately results in the petitioner not lifting liquor having minimum value of six times the proportionate licence fee and would therefore incur a disqualification for renewal of licence. It is his further case that the excise policy in G.O.Ms.No.109 as well as the notification issued by the licensing authority are in violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, who is a respondent in all the writ petitions has filed a common counter-affidavit as well as an additional common counter. The allegation that the petitioners' fundamental right under Articles 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India is violated is denied. The locus standi of the petitioners to question the excise policy and notification inviting applications for new licences is also questioned. The maintainability of the writ petitions for not impleading the affected parties i.e. the new licensees is also raised.