MADAN MOHAN CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 31-12-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6001/07 has filed this Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that appellant/petitioner has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating therein that though he is not having any liquor licence, but he intend to obtain the licence for selling the liquor. Therefore, as per the recent liquor policy of 2006-07, he should also be treated at par with the existing licence holders. It is further contended that the Government has issued liquor policy for the year 2006-07 and has taken decision that the licence of the existing licence holders shall be renewed after payment of 20% extra licence fees. It is further contended that, this decision of the Government is contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 of m. P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred as 'rules of 1996' ). It is further contended that though he is not the licence holder but by issuing such a policy he has been restrained from applying for licence as the government will renew the existing licences on payment of extra fees and this policy is violative of Fundamental Rules and Article 19 of the Constitution of india. Return was filed by the Government and Government supported the policy and it was submitted that the policy is not violative of Rule 8 or any fundamental right of the petitioner.

(3.) BY the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ Petition holding therein that the right to carry on business of liquor is not a fundamental right though the petitioner has right of equality before the law. Learned Single Judge has further held that until and unless validity of Rule 8 under which the shops are allotted is challenged, this Court cannot strike down the said rules. Learned Single Judge has also considered the provisions of Rule 8 of Rules of ,1996 and it was held that this rule does not provide that application shall be invited every year and the learned Single Judge was of the view that it is a contractual matter until and unless the State acted arbitrarily or mala fidely, no interference can be made in the contractual matters and dismissed the petition, against which the petitioner has filed this writ appeal.