PITAMBAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a licensee of Indian Made Foreign Liquor 'ON' shop in Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur for the excise year 2001 -2002. He was running his shop during that year in plot No. 1696, KhataNo. 423. He wanted to shift that shop to another site, namely, plot No. 2005, Khata No. 206. He wrote a letter in that behalf to the Collector, Jajpur through Superintendent of Excise, Jajpur, a copy of that letter is marked Annexure -3, but it does not bear any date. Nor is there any allegation in the writ petition as to when exactly that application was made. But, according to the petitioner, objections thereon were invited on 27.8.2001 under Annexure -4. According to the petitioner no objection was received and the Commissioner of Excise recommended the application.

(2.) WHILE matters stood thus, the excise year 2001 -2002 was coming to a close. According to the petitioner, on 30.3.2002 he approached the Superintendent of Excise for renewal of his 'ON' licence for the year 2002 -2003. He offered the entire licence fee, but the Superintendent of Excise refused to accept the licence fee, informing the petitioner that his application for renewal had been refused by the State. The petitioner has produced the order by which the application for renewal of his licence for the excise year 2002 -2003 and for shifting the shop to the new site were both rejected, as Annexure -7. The petitioner challenges Annexure -7 as illegal and unsustainable. According to him , refusal to renew the licence was against the excise policy announced by the State. The reason given for refusing the shifting was also not correct, the reason given being that the proposed site for the 'ON' shop was within the prohibited distance of National Highway No. 5 and that the shop could not be located at that site, in view of Rule 31 of the Orissa Excise Rules. The petitioner also submits that if a decision were to be taken to refuse the renewal of his licence, he should have been heard. The petitioner refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Restaurant and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1982 SC 1550 in that behalf. The observations in the decision of Dusasan Behera v. State of Orissa and others, 1994(11) OLR 613 were also relied on. Another un -reported decision in OJC No. 2782 of 2002 by this Court is also brought to our notice.

(3.) IT is by now well settled that no one has a fundamental right to trade in liquor. The decision of the Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is itself authority for that position, in addition to very many other decisions. Since this position was conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not think it necessary to cite the binding authorities on that question. The right to trade in liquor is retained with the Government. The Government forms out that right in terms of a policy decided upon by it. It is open to the Government to decide whether in a particular area, a licence should be granted for running a liquor shop or not. The Government has taken a decision, as can be seen from Annexure -7, that licence for I.M.F.L. 'ON' shop need not be issued at Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur. The decision not to grant a licence, is a decision well within the powers of the Government. The decision not to grant any licence for establishing a liquor shop in a village or a locality, is also in furtherance of the mandate of Article 47 of the Constitution of India. There is no successful challenge sought to be mounted in the writ petition against the decision of the Government not to grant any licence for I.M.F.L. 'ON' shop in Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur. For taking such a decision it is not necessary for the Government to hear a person whose licence had expired by the time the decision was intended to be implemented. The decision was to be effective from 1.4.2002 and the licence of the petitioner expired on 31.3.2002. What we mean to say is that there was no interference with the right of the petitioner to trade in liquor as per the licence issued to him, during the currency of that licence. What the Government decided was that from 1.4.2002, the next year, no licence for trade in Indian Made Foreign Liquor, need be issued in Kuakhia in the district of Jajpur. Since the petitioner has no fundamental right to trade in liquor and a fundamental right to a renewal of his licence, it is open to the Government to take such a decision without violating any of his rights. In the process of that decision making, the petitioner has no right to be heard. Moreover, when a Government decides that no liquor licence need be granted for a particular excise year in a particular locality or village, the petitioner is not entitled to question the same, since the petitioner cannot claim any fundamental right to trade in liquor. Since the licence of the petitioner has expired, in our view, in the policy decision now taken by the Government regarding non -grant of any licence to trade in liquor in a particular area, the petitioner has no right to be heard.