Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi  Insc 381 (6 July 2006)
Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan
out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 24704-24705 of 2005] WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2803 OF 2006 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2523 of 2006]
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2804 OF 2006 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 5428 of
2006] S.B. SINHA, J :
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi formulated an excise policy
in 2002 permitting sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) through private
parties upon issuance of L-52 licences. Upto the year 1979, prohibition was in
force in the State. From 1979 to 2003, IMFL and Country Liquor were being sold
exclusively through public sector undertakings. Pursuant to or in furtherance
of the said purported policy, however, an advertisement was issued inviting
applications for grant of L-52 licences for retail sale of IMFL for the licencing
year 2004-05 in commercial areas subject to the following conditions:
No fresh L-52 licence
in the private sector would be granted if the location of the proposed vend was
within 250 meters of an existing retail vend.
should be in actual physical possession of a shop admeasuring 500 sq. ft. in an
approved and recognized commercial complex.
should not be within 75 meters of :
50 beds and above.
The grant of
L-52 licence shall be subject to the acceptance of the application by the
competent authority who may accept or reject any application without assigning
any reasons. Further, the licensing authority was under no obligation to grant
any licence for which application had been made.
The licence was
to be subject to the general conditions in Rule 33 and special conditions in
Rule 34 of the Delhi Liquor License Rules, 1976.
clauses of the L-52 licence may also be noticed. Clause 12 provides for actual
physical possession of covered shop admeasuring 500 sq. ft. in an approved
commercial complex/area recognized by the local bodies such as DDA, MCD, NDMC,
etc. No licence was to be issued for a liquor vend within 75 meters of :
fifty beds and above. 'Major educational institutions' were defined to mean
"middle and higher secondary schools, colleges and other institution of
higher learning recognized by the Government of NCT of Delhi or Government of
India". No licence was to be issued where the proposed premises was
located within 250 meters from an existing L-2/L-52 vend of foreign liquor. The
licences were to be granted upon consideration of the applications on case to
case basis. Such applications were subject to acceptance by the competent
authority who may accept or reject any application without assigning any reason
and that the licensing authority would be under no obligation to grant any licence
for which an application has been made. A time schedule, however, was fixed therefor
to the effect that the licence was to be granted within 30 days from the grant
of approval therefor.
to or in furtherance of the said advertisement, the Appellants herein filed
their respective applications for grant of licences. In view of the fact that
large number of applications were filed, the State issued a public notice on or
about 7.2.2005 notifying closure of the scheme. It was, however, clarified that
pending applications would be considered as per the rules and terms and
conditions of the Scheme and no new application would be accepted.
in the case of Kuldeep Singh, his application was rejected, in the case of Surinder
Katiyal, the Appellant withdrew his application so as to enable him to file
another application at a different site.
Singh preferred an appeal against the order rejecting his application before
the Excise Commissioner. It was allowed by an order dated 11.5.2005 and the
matter was remitted to the Collector, Excise with a direction to conduct a
fresh inspection to ascertain the facts on a finding that the earlier inspection
had not been carried out properly. Pursuant thereto a fresh inspection of the
premises was carried out in May, 2005.
Appellants herein filed writ petitions before the High Court inter alia
alleging that their applications had not been considered in terms of the excise
policy of the State. Directions had been issued in the case of Sadaram Gupta to
the Respondents herein to dispose of his application for grant of L- 52 licence
for running a retail liquor vend on the same terms and conditions as well as
the policy existing on or before 16.9.2005.
about the month of March, however, there was a huge public outcry in regard to
the excise policy of the State. Resident Welfare Associations and elected
representatives also lodged protests. The matter was referred to the Cabinet
for a decision whether or not the State would continue with the said policy. On
or about 9th March, 2005, a decision was taken that no fresh licence would be
issued by the Department. Surprisingly despite the same, applications were
processed on the purported ground that in the event, the State was to direct
approval in regard to continuation of its liquor policy, the licences could be
issued immediately thereafter.
the matter was placed before the competent authority of the State, whereupon
the following decision was taken :
exercise for grant of licence was stopped in the month of March, 2005"
opening of shops is a matter of Govt. Policy, decided on a year to year basis,
it has been decided to review the last year's policy and not consider granting
any more L-52 Licences."
all above said retail vends, wholesale bonds and licensed premises of various
categories, effective and efficient enforcement is required to ensure
implementation of the provisions of the Excise Law and detection/ prevention of
revenue evasion. As against the requirement of 115 Inspectors and
Sub-Inspectors to cover the given number of licensed premises, the Department
has only a skeletal inspectorate staff of 51 to discharge its statutory
functions. In the considered view of the Department, it will not be appropriate
to open any new L-52 vend"
said proposal is all the more pertinent keeping in view the prohibition policy
of the Government which is aimed at discouraging drinking. The Directorate of
Prohibition, Govt. of NCT of Delhi educates the people, especially the youth
and socio- economically weaker sections, about the ill effects of alcohol by
various means and the message of prohibition is conveyed by spending money from
the exchequer. In this backdrop, the uncontrolled proliferation of liquor shops
would be against the overall objective of the Government as stated in Article
47 of the Constitution of India."
time of inviting applications, the number of shops required or the areas in
which they were to be opened was not mentioned.
tremendous wave of public resentment against the opening of such shops, in
keeping with the decided policy and norms, resulted in the need to stop the
process midway and to keep the pending applications in abeyance."
"In view of
the above and the fact that an order of rejection is necessitated by the policy
directions of the Government, a suitable and reasoned order may be passed by
the Collector (Excise) in the instant case." The said proposal was
approved by the Finance Minister who was competent therefor under the Rules of
Executive Business. The said decision of the Finance Minister was ratified by
the Council of Ministers.
High Court, however, in the writ applications pending before it directed that
the decision of the competent authority may be placed on record within three
days. The Collector, Excise rejected all the applications received pursuant to
the advertisement dated 22.11.2004 relying on or on the basis of the purported
policy decision of the Government taken on 16.9.2005 by an order dated 20th
having regard to the earlier orders passed in the writ petitions, a learned
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions directing the State
to grant licences to the Petitioners within one month in the event the writ
petitioners have fulfilled all the requirements therefor, before 16.9.2005.
Letters Patent Appeals filed thereagainst have been allowed by reason of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended:
The State acted
illegally and without jurisdiction in rejecting the applications for grant of
L-52 licences to the Appellants in so far as not only the cases of others had
been considered even after 9th March, 2005
but licences had also been granted during the period 11.3.2005 and 28.4.2005.
adopted a pick and choose method ignoring the fact that the licence was to be
granted on first-cum-first-serve basis.
The State itself
having given the date of grant of licence stating that the licence would be
issued on 10.1.2005, the Appellants derived an accrued right in relation
The High Court
having directed the State to consider the applications filed by the Appellants
herein on the same terms and conditions, the State could not have ignored the
same. The applicants had a legitimate expectation to obtain licences in view of
the policy decision of the State and, thus, it could not have refused to grant
The State having
adopted particular procedures for disposal of the applications for grant of
liquor licenses were bound thereby.
Subramanaium, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the
Respondent, on the other hand, submitted:
do not have any fundamental right to trade in liquor.
The State having
adopted a policy decision, this Court should not exercise its power of judicial
review interfering therewith. In any event, no case that the policy decision
suffers from any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety having
been made out nor any malice having been attributed in regard to the policy
decision, this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
The parties in
whose favour licenses have been granted were necessary parties to the writ
petitions and in their absence the writ petitions could not have been
Appellants filed applications for grant of licence pursuant to the policy
decision adopted by the State. They might have invested a huge amount, but did
not thereby derive any accrued or vested right. The matter relating to grant of
licence for dealing in liquor is within the exclusive domain of the State. If
the State had the right to adopt a policy decision, they indisputably had a
right to vary, amend or rescind the same. The effect of a policy decision taken
by the State is to be considered having regard to the provisions contained in
Article 47 of the Constitution of India as also its power of regulation and
control in respect of the trade in terms of the provisions of the Excise Act.
however, must express our dissatisfaction as regards the manner in which the
cases have been dealt with. If a policy decision had been taken by a competent
authority, viz., the Finance Minister as far back on 9th March, 2005, we fail to see any reason as to how the officials of the
State could proceed with the processing of the applications filed by the
applicants even thereafter. The explanation sought to be offered that the same
was done on the premise that the Cabinet may not approve the same, in our
opinion, is an after-thought. Although, other applications were processed, the
applications filed by the Appellants who had filed writ applications before the
Delhi High Court were not considered. It is beyond any cavil that the cases of
the applicants were required to receive due consideration at the hands of the
competent authority along with those who were similarly situated.
as the case of Kuldeep Singh is concerned, his application was required to be
considered afresh in view of the order passed by the Excise Commissioner.
Insofar as the case of Sadaram Gupta is concerned, the same was required to be
considered in terms of the interim order passed by the High Court. In the case
of Surinder Katiyal although he had withdrawn his earlier application and filed
a fresh application for grant of a licence at a different place, his contention
for shifting was accepted by the Respondent as would appear from the letter dated
6.5.2005 wherein it was stated:
reference to your letter dated 2.2.2005 and 8.2.2005 you are hereby informed
that your request for shifting of the proposed liquor from UG-1,2,3, Road No.
44, Plot No. 27, Sagar Plaza II, Pitampura, Community Center, New Delhi to
G-11-12, Vardhman Western Plaza, Behera Enclave, Paschin Vihar, Delhi 63 has
been accepted by the Competent Authority.
are therefore directed to submit the all requisite documents i.e. Commercial
Proof, Rent Agreement, NOC for running liquor shop, ownership proof,
Affidavits, Site Plan for your new proposed premises." For the purpose of
consideration of the applications filed by the applicants, the following time
frame was specified:
of Application No. of Days Cumulative Total Issue of deficiency memo, if any/
Approval for site inspection 10 days 10 days Site Inspection Report 10 days 20
days Approval for grant of Licence 04 days 24 days Issue of offer letter 06
days 30 days Although it was not imperative on the part of the Respondents
herein to adhere thereto, as the same was directory in nature, it was required
to be substantially complied with. [See P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir and Others,
(2003) 8 SCC 498 and Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Zora Singh and
Others, (2005) 6 SCC 776].
however, the State had made a change in its policy decision of opening the
doors to the private entrepreneurs evidently with a view to earn more revenue.
It represented to the applicants that their cases would be considered on their
own merits. Such consideration was, thus, required to be fair and reasonable.
Although dealing in liquor as has rightly been submitted by the learned
Additional Solicitor General is not a fundamental right, but indisputably the
equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India would
State of M.P. and Others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and
Others [(1986) 4 SCC 566] whereupon the learned Additional Solicitor General
himself relied upon, this Court stated:
one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in
liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or
privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor.
when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State
cannot escape the rigour of Article 14" [See also Ashok Lenka v. Rishi Dikshit
& Ors. 2006 (4) SCALE 519.] Moreover, if the equality clause applied, the
State could not have adopted different procedures for different applicants.
[See Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and
Others (1979) 3 SCC 489, para 10] The learned Additional Solicitor General
furthermore failed to give any satisfactory answer to a query made by us as to
how on the face of such policy decision which according to the State was
strictly adhered to, licences had been granted to six other persons. We would,
however, like to place on record the statements made by the learned Additional
Solicitor General that the State would take action for cancellation of the licences
of the said licensees.
State had adopted a policy to grant licence on first-cum-first- serve basis. It
had in terms of the public notice dated 7.2.2005, intended to grant licences
for 70 vends. Not only the terms and conditions for grant of such licences have
been specified, the mode and manner in which such applications were to be filed
had also been specified. As noticed hereinbefore, even time frame therefor was
however, difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' is
attracted in the instant case. Indisputably, the said doctrine is a source of
procedural or substantive right. [See R. v. North and East Devon Health
Authority, ex parte Coughlan 2001 Q.B. 213] But, however, the relevance of
application of the said doctrine is as to whether the expectation was
legitimate. Such legitimate expectation was also required to be determined
keeping in view the larger public interest. Claimants' perceptions would not be
relevant therefor. The State actions indisputably must be fair and reasonable.
Non - arbitrariness on its part is a significant facet in the field of good
governance. The discretion conferred upon the State yet again cannot be exercised
whimsically or capriciously. But where a change in the policy decision is valid
in law, any action taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, cannot be
State in its advertisement clearly stated:
grant of L-52 licence shall be subject to the acceptance of the application by
the specified competent authority who may accept or reject any application
without assigning any reason. The licensing authority shall be under no
obligation to grant any licence for which application has been made." In
view of clear stipulation made in the advertisement therefor, the Appellants
could not have had any legitimate expectation that they would invariably be
granted a licence to deal in liquor. A date for grant of licence, however, was
put in the case of Surinder Katiyal. The said date has been given evidently
having regard to the time frame made in the advertisement.
must have been done under a misconception. Such a clear mistake on the part of
the authorities would not clothe them with any legal right. His application was
received on 10.12.2004 while acknowledging receipt of the said application, it
was stated that the licence will be issued on 10.1.2005.
same, however, would not mean that the contents of his application were not required
to be verified in the light of the statutory requirements.
he withdrew his application so as to enable him to apply for another vend. He
filed such an application only on 8.2.2005 which was acknowledged, as noticed
hereinbefore, by the State in terms of its letter dated 6.5.2005. The said
letter dated 6.5.2005 did not contain any promise that the licence would be
granted by a particular date. Even otherwise, it was impermissible for the
Respondents to specify a date on which the licence shall be granted keeping in
view the fact that it was required to process a large number of applications.
It is, thus, not a case where the doctrine of legitimate expectation would be
State issued a public notice on 7.2.2005. Even prior thereto, the State
notified that only those applications which had been received by the Department
would be considered and no more. The Appellant, Surinder Katiyal evidently
filed his application on 8.2.2005. Still his application had been processed.
Some correspondences had been entered into in relation thereto.
not in dispute that the State received a large number of applications. It was
required to process all the applications. While processing such applications,
inspections of the proposed sites were to be carried out and the contents
thereof were required to be verified. For the said purpose, the applications
were required to be strictly scrutinized. [See Ashok Lenka (supra)] Unless,
therefore, an accrued or vested right had been derived by the Appellants, the
policy decision could have been changed.
would be an acquired or accrued right in the present situation is the question.
Director of Public Works and Another v. HO PO Sang and Others [(1961) AC 901],
the Privy Council considered the said question having regard to the repealing
provisions of Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, 1947 as amended on 9th April,
1957. It was held that having regard to the repeal of Sections 3A to 3E, when
applications remained pending, no accrued or vested right was derived stating:
summary, the application of the second appellant for a rebuilding certificate
conferred no right on him which was preserved after the repeal of sections
3A-E, but merely conferred hope or expectation that the Governor in Council
would exercise his executive or ministerial discretion in his favour and the
first appellant would thereafter issue a certificate. Similarly, the issue by
the first appellant of notice of intention to grant a rebuilding certificate
conferred no right on the second appellant which was preserved after the
repeal, but merely instituted a procedure whereby the matter could be referred
to the Governor in Council. The repeal disentitled the first appellant from
thereafter issuing any rebuilding certificate where the matter had been
referred by petition to the Governor in Council but had not been determined by
the Governor." [See also Lakshmi Amma alias Echuma Amma v. Devassy 1970
KLT 204.] The question again came up for consideration in Howrah Municipal Corpn.
and Others v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. and Others [(2004) 1 SCC 663] wherein this
Court categorically held:
context in which the respondent Company claims a vested right for sanction and
which has been accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court, is not a right
in relation to "ownership or possession of any property" for which
the expression "vest" is generally used. What we can understand from
the claim of a "vested right" set up by the respondent Company is
that on the basis of the Building Rules, as applicable to their case on the
date of making an application for sanction and the fixed period allotted by the
Court for its consideration, it had a "legitimate" or "settled
expectation" to obtain the sanction. In our considered opinion, such
"settled expectation", if any, did not create any vested right to
obtain sanction. True it is, that the respondent Company which can have no
control over the manner of processing of application for sanction by the
Corporation cannot be blamed for delay but during pendency of its application
for sanction, if the State Government, in exercise of its rule-making power,
amended the Building Rules and imposed restrictions on the heights of buildings
and other wards, such "settled expectation" has been rendered
impossible of fulfilment due to change in law. The claim based on the alleged
"vested right" or "settled expectation" cannot be set up
against statutory provisions which were brought into force by the State
Government by amending the Building Rules and not by the Corporation against
whom such "vested right" or "settled expectation" is being
sought to be enforced. The "vested right" or "settled
expectation" has been nullified not only by the Corporation but also by
the State by amending the Building Rules. Besides this, such a "settled
expectation" or the so-called "vested right" cannot be
countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be
served by amendment of the Building Rules and the resolution of the Corporation
issued thereupon." In Union of India and Others v. Indian Charge Chrome
and Another [(1999) 7 SCC 314], again this Court emphasized:
application has to be decided in accordance with the law applicable on the date
on which the authority granting the registration is called upon to apply its
mind to the prayer for registration" In S.B. International Ltd. and Others
v. Asstt. Director General of Foreign Trade and Others [(1996) 2 SCC 439], this
Court repelled a contention that the authorities cannot take advantage of their
own wrong, viz., delay in issuing the advance licence stating:
have mentioned hereinbefore that issuance of these licences is not a formality
nor a mere ministerial function but that it requires due verification and
formation of satisfaction as to compliance with all the relevant provisions"
In a case of this nature where the State has the exclusive privilege and the
citizen has no fundamental right to carry on business in liquor, in our
opinion, the policy which would be applicable is the one which is prevalent on
the date of grant and not the one, on which the application had been filed.
policy decision had been taken on 16.9.2005 not to grant L-52 licence, no licence
could have been granted after the said date.
event the period for which licences could be directed to the appellants has
since expired. This Court, thus, cannot direct grant of licence for the next
year only because some licences had been granted after 9th March, 2005. Article 14 of the Constitution of
India carries with it a positive concept. Equality cannot be claimed in
illegalities. [See State of U.P. v. Raj
Kumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCJ 713] We have moreover noticed hereinbefore, the
statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that steps would be
taken for cancellation of licences of those licensees who had been granted licence
after the said date. We do not intend to make any further observation in regard
true that some licences had been granted, but the same cannot by itself be a ground
to issue a writ of mandamus, particularly in view of the fact that the
appellants have no legal right in respect thereof.
the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Moreover
the period for which the applications for grant of licences had been granted
has also expired. We dismiss these appeals. No costs.