Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi vs Saroj Sharma

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Three writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 19993/05, W.P.(C) No. 19995/05 and W.P.(C) No. 19996/05 respectively were filed by the respondents of the three above captioned appeals; namely, Saroj Sharma, Chaitanya Raj Singh and Smt. Bindu Mehta.

Vide identically worded orders dated 18.10.2005, the three writ petitions were allowed. The impugned order reads as under:

Learned Counsel for the respondent�s reliance on Lt. Col. S.K. Kapoor [Retd] and Others Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, , and paragraph 25 thereof in particular, does not persuade me to change the view which has already been taken.

The matter is covered on all fours with the decision in Bikramjit Pure Liquors P. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi WP (C) No. 17941/2005 decided by this Court on 26th September, 2005.

In terms of the said judgment, this Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

The three appeals have to be allowed for a short reason that the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17941/2005 relied upon in the impugned orders has been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court vide LPA No. 355/2006 Government of NCT Delhi v. Bikramjit Pure Liquors Pvt. Ltd. The decision reads as under:

With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for consideration and disposal.

It is agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties that the subject matter of the present appeal is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2802/2006.

We have perused copy of the said judgment and have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the said judgment. Subject matter before the Supreme Court and this Court are similar and identical as is admitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent also. By the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal filed for grant of L-52 licence. One of the ground on which the said appeal was rejected was that the period for which licence had to be issued to the party had expired. It was also held by the Supreme Court that Courts cannot direct grant of licence for the next year and that the State has the exclusive privilege and the citizen has no fundamental right to carry on business in liquor. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the policy which would be applicable is the one which is prevalent on the date of grant and not the one applicable on the date when the application was filed and that if a 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.

The learned Single Judge, therefore, committed an error and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the impugned judgment has to be set aside. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and hold that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

To clarify with respect to the decision dated 5.10.2007 allowing LPA No. 355/2006, it may be noted that large number of writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 26.9.2005, which included the decision allowing W.P.(C) No. 17941/2005 Bikramjit Pure Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi. Three appeals being LPA No. 2388/2005, LPA No. 2389/2005 and LPA No. 2443/2005 filed by the Government of NCT Delhi challenging the judgment and order dated 26.9.2005 were decided by a Division Bench and were allowed. The LPA No. 355/2006 remained pending.

Against the decision of the Division Bench two aggrieved parties one of whom was Kuldeep Singh filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court and on leave being granted was converted into CA No. 2802/2006, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 6.7.2006, said decision has been noted by the Division Bench which decided LPA No. 355/2006.

Suffice would it be to state that the issue raised in the various writ petitions pertained to the excise policy formulated by the Government of NCT Delhi for the year 2002 pertaining to sale of IMFL through private parties to whom L-52 licences were to be issued. In terms of the said policy applications were invited for the licensing year 2004-05. It was decided that subject to eligibility, the licences would be issued on first come first serve basis. On 7.2.2005, it was notified that the scheme was closed with a clarification that pending applications would be considered. On 9.3.2005 the Cabinet took a decision that no further licences would be issued resulting in many persons who were way down in the list being granted the licence pending consideration of the claim of those who had applied earlier on account of clearances to be obtained by them.

It was held by the Supreme Court that notwithstanding money being spent by the applicants, no vested right had accrued and that matters relating to grant of licence for dealing in liquor is within the exclusive domain of the State and the State has an indisputable right to vary, amend or resign the scheme. It was held that notwithstanding the policy requiring grant of licence on first come first serve basis, change in policy being valid in law, even if the principle of first come first serve was violated would be of no benefit to the writ petitioners.

Thus, we need not note the lengthy submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents pertaining to the legitimate expectations of the respondents. We note that the Supreme Court has already repelled the said contention.

The issue at hand is squarely covered by two decisions of coordinate Benches as also the Supreme Court.

The appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2005 allowing W.P.(C) No. 19993/05, W.P.(C) No. 19995/05 and W.P.(C) No. 19996/05 are set aside. The writ petitions are dismissed.

No costs.