'Right To Trade Of Liquor Not Fundamental Right': P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Punjab Excise Policy 2024-25
Observing that the "right to trade of liquor is not a fundamental right", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea challenging Punjab Excise Policy 2024-2025's Clauses.It was argued that as per the Excise Policy for the year 2024-2025, the application fee for the liquor vends has been increased to 75,000 which shall be non-refundable, which is unjustified as allotment of...
Observing that the "right to trade of liquor is not a fundamental right", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea challenging Punjab Excise Policy 2024-2025's Clauses.
It was argued that as per the Excise Policy for the year 2024-2025, the application fee for the liquor vends has been increased to 75,000 which shall be non-refundable, which is unjustified as allotment of vends is by "draw of lots."
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "This Court is of the firm view that right to trade of liquor is not a fundamental right and is an exclusive privilege of the State to lay down its Excise Policy. The principles of natural justice have no application in matter of contract and trade."
It opined that since the applicants had applied voluntarily for said bids knowing that the application fee was not refundable, it cannot be said that such a condition is illegal or arbitrary nor it can be said that there is unjust enrichment on the part of the Government.
The Court was hearing a plea of M/S Darshan Singh & Company, Mega challenging the Excise Policy of the State of Punjab for the year 2024-2025 vis-à-vis Clause 2 and Clause 15(2).
The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the Excise Policy for the year 2024-2025, the application fee for the liquor vends has been increased to 75,000 which shall be non-refundable, which is unjustified as allotment of vends is by "draw of lots."
Certain persons had applied for liquor vends individually, while some persons have made several applications in the name of different family members for the same liquor vends, he added. Thus, it was alleged that there was a huge scam.
It was further argued that the Policy as framed by the respondents, is in violation of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Act) and the Punjab Liquor License (First Amendment) Rules, 2024 (Rules).
The petitioner contended that the vends could not have been distributed by way of drawing lots. He submits that vends should have been openly auctioned and the system of lottery adopted is illegal and de hors the Rules of 2024.
On the other hand, AG Punjab informed that the Policy introduced by the State is in strict conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules of 2024. It is stated that as per Section 58(2) of the Act, the State Government is empowered to make Rules for regulating the import and export.
After examining the submissions, the Court found that the State Government has framed the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 in compliance of the provisions of the Act wherein Rules 35 and 36 lay down the procedure for grant of the licence.
As per the substituted Rules 35 and 36, issued vide notification dated 24.03.2006, the procedure for allotment of the liquor vends has been laid down by draw of lots, it noted.
The Court said that it is satisfied that the Policy has been duly notified and the Government has acted in strict conformity the Act and therefore, it cannot be said that the Policy is de hors the Rules or the Act.
The bench rejected the argument of the petitioner that the liquor vends should be allotted by way of auction.
"This Court is not going to substitute its own opinion to that of the State Government with regard to its Policy," it said.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal Vs. Keshoram Industries Ltd. and Others; [(2004) 10 SCC 201], the Court said since the petitioner never participated in the process and appears to be a busy body, the question relating to the fees of application, as raised by such person, "is without basis."
Mohan Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Advocates Madhu Bala, Gautam Warikoo, Divay Gupta, Advocate and Sushant Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Gurminder Singh, Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 121
Title: M/S. DARSHAN SINGH & COMPANY, MOGA THROUGH ITS PARTNER, SH. SANJEEV KUMAR SAINI V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS