ORGEE CHEMICALS IMFL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a registered partnership firm having its office and principal place of business at Gwalior, has set up a Small Scale Industry of manufacturing Indian -made foreign liquor and bottling plant in the Industrial Area of Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, which commenced its production from October 1990. A licence in Form D -2 (Annexure P.2) was issued to petitioner by respondents No. 1 and 2 under R. IV of the Distillery and Warehouse Rules framed under S. 18(1), S. 62(2)(g), (e) and (h) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (for short, the 'Act'). Licence (Annexure P.3) in Form FL -8 under Cl. (viii) of R. II of the Foreign Liquor Rules framed under S. 62(2)(a), (d), (g) and (h) was also issued to the petitioner authorising commencement, manufacturing and bottling of liquor. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 62(2)(g), (h) (ii) and (iii), vide Notification No. B -1 -491 -C.T.V. dated 25th January 1991, published in M.P. Rajpatra, dated 28th January 1991 (Annexure R.1), made amendments in the Distillery and Warehouse Rules in Madhya Pradesh Excise Rules, 1960, whereby in R.V for the figure of Rs. 1,000/ - the figure of Rs. 50,000/ -, for issuing a licence in Form D -2 for the construction and working of a distillery, was substituted with effect from 1st April 1991. Vide Notification of the said date (Annexure R.2) the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (g) of sub -section (2) of S. 62 of the Act, made amendments in the Foreign Liquor Rules, published on 7th January 1960, and in licence Forms FL -2, FL -3, FL -4, FL -8 and FL -11, which are quoted as under:

(2.) THE petitioner challenged all these Notifications and enhancement of fee, inter alia, on the ground that the enhancement of various fees is without affording an opportunity of hearing, arbitrary, mala fide, unconstitutional and beyond the powers vested in the respondents, is a device to restrict the right of trade and to deprive the new small scale enterpreneurs of their means of earnings. It was averred that there is no clement of quid pro quo. The petitioner in para 12 further contended that the rules provide charging of fee in 12 monthly instalments but the act of the respondents in compelling the petitioner to pay in a lumpsum is illegal and unwarranted; if the petitioner is not allowed to pay the fee in instalment." the Small Scale Industry will have to be closed down which will result in a forced unemployment of the workers employed in the factory.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri N.P. Mittal on 13.7.1991 stated that the petitioner does not challenge the validity of the Notifications issued. Shri P.N. Kelkar, learned Deputy Advocate General, raising the preliminary objection in relation to jurisdiction of this Bench, submitted that as the petitioner has confined his grievance to the licence fee being demanded in lumpsum when, in fact, it is payable in monthly instalments, relying on S. 18(c) and the Rules framed under S. 62(2)(a), (d), (g) and (h) of the Act, the petition be heard and disposed of finally. Counsel were heard and order was reserved. In the meantime, as counsel for petitioner wanted to make additional submissions, on 15.7.1991 the case was ordered to he listed on 24.7.1991. On that date Shri Mittal restricted his grievance to the payment of licence fee in relation to licences in Form D -2 and Form FL -8.