GAURI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions of facts and law are involved in these two writ petitions, they are disposed of together by a common order.

(2.) THE facts stated in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 524 of 1978 Gauri Lal vs. THE State are as follows: -

(3.) THE next point urged by H. M. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the decision of the State Government taken on August 2, 1978, is inconsistent with the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the Rajasthan Prohibition Act and the rules made thereunder. According to his submission, the State Government has no jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of the statutory powers vested in the Excise Commissioner, who a one was em-powered to grant the requisite licence for retail sale of liquor upon receipt of an application under Rule 72a of the Rajasthan Excise Rules filed by a person desirous of obtaining such a licence. It was further argued that there were arrears of excise outstanding against Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and so its application for licence must have been rejected for this reason as laid down by the Rajasthan Foreign Liquor, Grant of Wholesale and Retail off Licence) Rules, 1972, which were made by the State Government in exercise of the powers under section 41 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. THE above contention also has no force. It is no doubt true that before a person becomes eligible to apply for a retail off licence he should not possess any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-rule, 7) of Rule 3 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1972. One of the disqualifications mentioned in sub rule, 7) of the said Rules is that if there are arrears of excise dues outstanding against the applicant, his application for licence shall liable to be rejected for this reason. In the present case there is nothing on the record to show that at the time when retail licence for sale of foreign liquor was granted to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. , there were arrears of excise dues outstanding against it Under sub-rule, 5) of Rule 3 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the District Excise Officer was bound to record a note whether or not the applicant was suffering from any of the disabilities to hold a licence mentioned in sub rule, 7) there of. THE petitioner could not show that any such note was recorded by the District Excise Officer or that the Excise Commissioner granted the licence to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd despite such note regarding disabilities to hold a licence Unless it is established that any sum was due from Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. towards arrears of excise dues, the licence cannot be said to have been illegally issued to it. Apart from this, if it is brought to the notice of the Excise Commissioner that Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. suffered from any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-rule, 7) of Rule 3 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1972, but has purposely concealed it by giving a false declaration, he is empowered, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being beard to the petitioners, to cancel the sanction issued for grant of licence and forfeit the entire fees paid on its behalf. It will not be out of place to mention that it is evident from Ex. R. 2 that the licence was granted to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act and the Prohibition Rules, which applied to all prohibited areas in the State. Under the Prohibition Rules, there is no provision that an application for licence shall be liable to be rejected for the reason that there are arrears to excise dues outstanding against the applicant. Under Rule 8 of these Rules the Excise Commissioner may grant a licence in form RPn. 3 for retail vend off brandy. Of course, under rule 9 of these Rules he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant the licence. Be that as it may, the licence granted to Ganganagar Sugar Mills for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor cannot be held to be invalid merely because the petitioner contends that there were some excise dues outstanding against it when the licence was granted, especially when the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 did not say that any such disqualification wa3 possessed by the licencee.