Delhi High Court Dismisses Pernod Ricard’s Plea Against Rejection Of Application For L-1 Liquor License, Permits It To Approach Appellate Authority

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea moved by French company Pernod Ricard against the Delhi Department of Excise's rejection of its application for L-1 license to sell liquor in the national capital.

Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected the plea due to non-maintainability and said that Pernod Ricard must approach the Appellate Authority under the Excise Act, 2009 to challenge the order passed by the Delhi Government’s excise department on April 13.

Pernod Ricard’s application for liquor license was rejected on the ground that various documents were received from CBI and ED alleging its participation in the alleged liquor policy scam, involving Delhi’s former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and various others.

“The petitioner’s (Pernod Ricard) is permitted to approach the Appellate Authority under the Excise Act, 2009 by filing an appeal within two weeks. If such an appeal is filed within the period prescribed, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation,” the court said.

It added that the impugned order would not have any bearing on the fresh consideration to be made by the Appellate Authority and that the court’s observations shall not have any bearing on the appeal.

“In view thereof, in the opinion of this Court, the entire matter shall have to be thrashed out in a substantive appeal which is maintainable under Section 72 of the Excise Act, 2009. Therefore, the question whether or not the Petitioner is entitled for grant of L-1 license under the provisions of Excise Act, 2009 and Rules therein is left open to be decided by the Appellate Authority,” the court said.

It was submitted on behalf of Pernod Ricard that the CBI FIR would not have any bearing on its L1 license application as neither the French company nor its employees have been chargesheeted in the same.

It was also contended that the only employee against whom allegations were made was Benoy Babu and that he was arrested by ED.

One employee’s arrest cannot result in the company lacking moral character or having criminal antecedents or background in terms of Section 13(1)(c) of the Excise Act, 2009, it was submitted.

On the other hand, the Delhi Government took the stand that there was an efficacious alternative remedy available with Pernod Ricard in the form of an appeal under the Excise Act, 2009.

It was submitted that the entire conspiracy which unraveled in the CBI FIR and in various complaints of ED would show that Pernod Ricard and its employees were fully involved in the conspiracy relating to the alleged scam and were beneficiaries as well.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Singh observed that “a case of this nature” which raises serious allegations against Pernod Ricard would require examination of facts and would not be one where discretion ought to be exercised in its favour in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

“Further, the impugned order itself records that the Petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal against the order before the Appellate Authority, in terms of Section 72 of the Excise Act, 2009. The Petitioner can seek a hearing before the Appellate Authority which can go into factual and legal issues. In such an appeal, the Petitioner under Section 72(5) can raise various grounds including filing of additional evidence. The Petitioner in appeal will also be able to address the allegations raised in the impugned order which have not been gone into in this petition,” the court said.

Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 602

Click Here To Read Order