PINKU YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point involved in ail the six cases are one and the same, as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order.

(2.) The five writ applications relate to settlement of retail shops of country liquor and spiced county liquor in the district of Patna whereas the last CWJC No. 4050 of 2005 relates to the district of Katihar. The petitioners claim to be ex-licensees of the retail shops of country liquor/spiced country liquor for the year 2004-05 and have challenged the settlement of the said shops for the year 2005-06 by following the provisions of the Bihar Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country/Spiced Country Liquor) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Though the petitioners have challenged Rule 5 of the Rules on the ground that the same creates monopoly in favour of certain persons and as such violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as well as is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, alternatively they have challenged on the ground that Rule 5 of the Rules has not been followed in making the settlement.

(3.) The stand of the State is that the provisions of the Rules do not infringe the fundamental or legal right of the petitioners and thus within the competence of the Government to frame the Rules in the larger interest of the State revenue as well as to cover up the areas of unsettled shops which remained open to the smugglers and bootleggers. It is well settled that to part with the privilege of excise articles, the Government can consider the interest of its revenue. The Citizens cannot have fundamental right to trade or to carry on business in the properties and right belonging to the Government. There is no inherent right in a citizen to sell intoxicants. The State can control the business in intoxicants and in such a case no question of infringement of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution arises. Dealing in intoxicant is not a trade or business within the meaning of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Trade in liquor has been treated on a different footing from other trades. The restrictions which may not be permissible with other trades, are lawful and reasonsable so far as the trade in liquor is concerned. The auction of excise shops are made for augmentation of revenue of the State and it is for the State to get the best available price for its valuable rights. Earlier the settlement for retail vend of country liquor was being made shop-wise through auction-cum-tender system as per the policy decision of the Government. Its working was good for few years but later on many retail shops remained unsettled and the details of unsettled shops in the years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 have been given in the counter affidavit filed in one of the cases. As a result of non-settlement of the said shops, the State suffered a loss of huge amount which has been noticed by the Accountant General in his report. The State Government gathered information and found that the settlement of shops in group has earned more revenue in the neighbouring State of Uttar Pradesh and accordingly, the Government took a policy decision to make the rules with a view to ensure 100% settlement and lifting of minimum guaranteed quota as well as to counteract the illegal sale of liquor in the area of unsettled shops and accordingly, new Rules have been framed. A copy of the said Rules has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit.