LALIT JAGGI Vs. STATE OG MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a notification dated 21.2.2005, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh framed a liquor policy for the year 2005-2006. Clause 13 of the said Liquor Policy laid down the procedure for depositing the licence fee by a retailer of liquor. Sub-clause (1) of clause 13 of the Liquor Policy stipulated that the annual licence fee would be divided into 24 equal fortnightly instalments and liquor would be released in lieu of the instalments deposited. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 13 of the Liquor Policy provided for issue of a No Objection Certificate to the licensee after deposit of instalment of licence fee. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 13 stipulated that in case the licensee failed to deposit the licence fee before the expiry of next instalment due, then the licence was liable to be cancelled and an alternative arrangement would be made to operate the concerned liquor shop. Sub-clause (4) of Clause 13 further stipulated that in case the licensee deposited the amount of instalment before the expiry of the next instalment due and for some reason it was not possible to supply the liquor, then the same would be supplied after the expiry of the said period.

(2.) AFTER the aforesaid liquor policy for the year 2005-2006 was notified, the petitioner was allotted liquor shop M.P. Nagar, Bhopal pursuant to an auction in which the petitioner was the highest bidder. The petitioner deposited the basic licence fee of Rs. 18,40,000/- and was required to deposit the annual licence fee of Rs. 2,11,60,000/- in 24 equal instalments starting from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006. Each of these instalments worked out to Rs. 8,81,666/- and such instalment was to be deposited once every fortnight. Between April and July 2005, the petitioner defaulted in depositing the full amount of the instalments in time and against the amounts deposited, lifted liquor and started selling the same in the shop in question. A show cause notice dated 12.7.2005 was issued to the petitioner by the Collector, Bhopal requiring him to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him inasmuch as he had not deposited a deficit of Rs. 10,01,758/- towards the said instalments due up to 30.6.2005. The petitioner submitted his reply on 18.7.2005 to the Collector. Thereafter the petitioner cleared the entire deficit. The Excise Department issued a No Objection Certificate dated 30.7.2005 in favour of the petitioner but the same was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise by letter dated 11.8.2005 and a direction was given to the Warehouse Incharge not to release supplies to the petitioner. The petitioner again paid the instalment of Rs. 8,81,666/- which was to be paid on 15.8.2005 but No Objection Certificate was not issued to the petitioner on account of which the petitioner was unable to lift the supply of liquor against the payment made. The Petitioner was informed that unless he paid an additional amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, he would not be allowed to lift the liquor and the petitioner paid Rs. 5,00,000/- under protest on 26.8.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to pay further amount of Rs. 77,000/- which the petitioner paid on 26.8.2005. Since the petitioner was not issued with No Objection Certificate and he could not lift the liquor against the deposits already made by him, he filed the present writ petition for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) MR . Sanjay Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the State of Madhya Pradesh, on the other hand, relied on the reply filed on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the State Government was fully empowered to frame the liquor policy for the year 2005-2006 including clause 13 thereof and that sub-clause (3) and (4) of clause 13 do not in any way violate the provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that the said sub-clauses (3) and (4) of clause 13 of the Liquor Policy also do not violate the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that a plain reading of the impugned circular dated 9.8.2005 of the Excise Commissioner would show that the same-is consistent with the provisions of clause 13 of the Liquor Policy for the year 2005-2006 and the same is not, in any way ultra vires section 25 of the Excise Act, or Article 14 of the Constitution.