DAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent whereby the renewal of the license for sale of foreign and Indian liquor was not granted. This license was issued to the petitioner for retail sale of foreign and Indian liquor for Apsara Hotel on 30th August, 1969. This license was renewed from time to time and the last renewal was for the period commencing from 1st April, 1979 to 31st March, 1980. The petitioner applied for renewal of the license vide his application dated 28th February, 1980 and also deposited a sum of Rupees 10,000/- on account of renewal fee of the license and Rs. 1,000/- being the ware fee.

(2.) In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) the State Government proceeded to specify Udaipur inter alia as an area in which the Act shall come into force with effect from 1st April, 1980 vide Section O. No. 245 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 31st March, 1980. The stock of liquor which was available with the petitioner in the Bar attached to his Hotel came to be sealed after preparation of the inventory on 31st March, 1980. The petitioner's grievance is that the stock of liquor which was available in the Bar maintained by Three Star and above Hotel, Tourists Corporation Hotel and Midways was not sealed and they were allowed to be available of the licence granted to them during the year preceding 1st April, 1980, if they had made an application for renewal. It was further contended by the petitioner that vide Annexure 7 dated 3rd April, 1980, the Excise Inspector, Udaipur called upon the petitioner to appear before him with record of the sale of the liquor to the foreigners. The petitioner accordingly appeared before the Excise Inspector and produced the necessary record. As the license was not renewed and the petitioner did not hear anything about his application for renewal he submitted an application for grant of license by way of renewal along with submission of the list of foreign tourists. But, having not heard anything on this application, further applications were moved on 18th April, 1980 and 20th April, 1980. The Act came into force on 19th September, 1969, but as far as Udaipur was concerned it was extended on 1st April, 1980.

(3.) Under Section 31 of the Act, power is vested in the Prohibition Commissioner to issue licences inter alia to the Proprietors of the Hotel to possess liquor and issue it to the visitors who held permits under clause (a) of Section 31 of the Act. The petitioner further contended that in exercise of the power conferred upon it by Sections 31, 32, 34 and 68 of the Act, the State Government proceeded to make the Rajasthan Prohibition (Grant of Hotel Licences) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). Rule 3 of the Rules lays down the eligibility and procedure for grant of hotel license and provides that any person who owns and runs a hotel as defined in these rules and who does not possess any of the disqualifications mentioned in Sub-rule (10) of Rule 3 shall be eligible to apply for a hotel license. The petitioner states that he is fully eligible for grant of a license, and he does not suffer from any disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The petitioner has further contended that in order to meet the situation prevailing on account of the enforcement of the Act, the State Government proceeded to issue telegraphic instructions providing inter alia that the licenses granted to Three Star and above hotels. Tourist Corporation Hotels and Midways and other hotels, in the preceding year to continue to operate under old license if applied for renewal with conditions substituted as prescribed under the Prohibition Rules such license, if granted, to be deemed effective from 1st April, 1980 and that the sale of liquor in other hotels shall be stopped. The contention of the petitioner is that this action of the State Government is discriminatory in nature and strikes at the fundamental rights of the petitioner to carry on the trade and business in the sale of liquor.