ABDUL LATIFF Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1960, the Bherno Ganja shop was ordered to be shifted to Doranda in the town of Ranchi and applications were called for by the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi for settlement of this Ganja shop. About 39 persons submitted applications in that year for settlement of the Doranda Ganja Shop, but proceedings for settlement were stayed by the High Court in M. J. C. 1229 of 1960 on the application of Abdul Wahab. licensee of the Ganja and Bhang shop at Lower Bazar, Ranchi, on the ground that the shifting of the Bherno Ganja shop to Doranda during the currency of his license for the Lower Bazar Ganja shop would adversely affect his business. On the 30th of November, 1962, M. J. C. No. 1229 of 1960 was dismissed by the High Court. After dismissal of that case, the Deput' Commissioner of Ranchi took up the matter of settlement of Doranda 'Ganja shop for the year 1963-64. He did not invite fresh applications but proceeded to make a selection from the 39 applications received for the year 1960-61. Out of these 39 applications, the Superintendent of Excise, Ranchi5 prepared a list of seven persons, all of whom were members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, amongst whom the final selection for settlement of licence of the shop was to be made. This list did not contain the name of the petitioner Abdul Latiff who made an application on the 9th May, 1963 to the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi for including his name in the approved list. The application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi on the nth May, 1963, on the ground that the petitioner was not a member of a scheduled tribe or scheduled caste and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi proceeded to draw a lot for settlement of the Ganja shop only amongst the members of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe applicants. The lottery was drawn in favour oi Jagmohan Naik? respondent No. 4 and the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi accordingly ordered settlement of the shop to be made with him.

(2.) In injecting the application of the petitioner Abdul Latif by his order dated the nth May, 1963^ the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi relied upon the order of the State Government contained in Excise Commissioner's Memo No. 9520 dated the nth October, 1958, which is to the following effect: -- "To The Collectors /Deputy Commissioners of all Districts Excise Superintendents of all Districts. Patna, the 29th Srawan, 1880 (S) 20th August, 1958 It was decided by Government in 1952 to give preference to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates in the settlement of new Excise shops under the Sliding Scale System for a period of one year, in the interest of advancement of such socially and economically backward classes. The concession has been extended from year to year since then, but the implementation of the policy has not been very effective so that the objective has not been fully achieved. 2. It has; therefore, been decided by Government that preference should continue to be given to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, if otherwise suitable, in the matter of settlement of Excise shops under the Sliding Scale ' System and that the standard of suitability in such cases should as in the matter of their appointment and promotion to posts under Government, be lower than that prescribed for candidates of other castes. To achieve the desired objective, it has also been decided by Government that the following procedure should be adopted in settlement of Excise Shops: -- (a) whenever any Excise shop is proposed to be settled, an intimation about this should be sent to the Welfare Department who will give due publicity to the matter amongst scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates. (b) When there are several candidates for an Excise shop, out of whom one is a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate and he is otherwise suitable, the shop should not be settled by lot but could be settled straightway with the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate. (c) If there are more than one suitable scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate for the same shop, the lot should be drawn only among the suitable scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates and the winner should get the shop. (d) Candidates of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe should not be rejected as unsuitable except after very careful consideration of the matter. When none of the applicants of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe is found suitable, the order of Excise Commissioner should be obtained before they are rejected as unsuitable and the full facts as to why they are considered unsuitable should be stated. 3. The progress achieved in the settlement of Excise shops with the candidates of scheduled caste and .scheduled tribe should be reported to Excise Commissioner for the information of Government in the month of April each year, for chat financial year. Sd. K.K. Mitra, 20.8.58 Additional Secretary to Government". The petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order of the State Government dated the 20th August, 1958 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi dated the nth May, 1963 making settlement of the Doranda Ganja shop in favour of respondent No. 4 should not be quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. Cause has been shown by the learned Advocate General and other Counsel on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

(3.) The main question presented for determination in this case is whether the order of the State Government dated the 2oth August, 1958 violates the guarantee granted by Article 15 of the Constitution which states: