AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Chennakesav Reddy
The petitioners have obtained licence for the excise year 1978-79 for the exclusive right of sale of liquor for the liquor shops of the villages of Ankapur. Pipri, (Range Khudavanpur) Issapalli, Argul, Govindpet, Narkunda (Range Bhumagal) Chengal, Sunket. Ramannapet, Hasor Kothur. Palem, Thimma pur, Wadiat, Uploor, Kothapalli, Dussapur, and Nellore of Armoor Taluk, Nizamabad District. In these villages there was then licence for sale of Indian liquor or Foreign liquor. They claim that under the licence granted to them, they have the exclusive right to sell liquor in the said villages and that the Government have no power or jurisdiction to grant any licence to or confer any right on any other person to sell any liquor in any form whatsoever. The claim is founded on sub rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to, Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ''Lease of liquor Rules'') Under the said sub rule, it is the contention of the petitioners that a licence for the sale of Indian and Foreign liquor other than the arrack and toddy, can only be granted in the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and such other places as the State Government may notify. But it is pleaded that none of the villages in respect of which the petitioners have obtained licence to sell arrack have been notified by the Government as required under Sub-Rule (3). Nevertheless, it is urged that the third respondent viz., Superintendent of Excise, Nizamabad, is persuading the second respondant--Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad to issue licences to various persons for the sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor in the said villages and they are likely to grant licences to various persons. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ Petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to grant any licences for the sale of Foreign or Indian Liquor in any of the 17 villages mentioned in the Writ Petition. In the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that the petitioners have obtained a licence for the sale of arrack in the villages mentioned by them, But it is pleaded by the respondents that the Government have power to grant licences for the sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor under the Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 (hereinafter called ''the Foreign Liquor, Rules'') made in Supersession of all rules on the subject, and sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Lease of liquor Rules is inapplicable to the grant of licences under the Foreign Liquor Rules, It is not denied that the said villages have not been notified as alleged by the petitioners as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Lease of Liquor Rules. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that some applications for the grant of licences in the said villages under the foreign liquor rules are pending.
It is thus the common case of both the parties that the petitioners are the licences of the arrack shops for the 17 villages mentioned above and that the said villages have not been notified under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Lease of Liquor Rules for the grant of licences to sell India and Foreign Liquors. While it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no licences to sell Indian and Foreign Liquor other than arrack and toddy in the said villages can be granted in the absence of any such notification, it is asserted by the learned Government Pleader that the Government have power to issue licences for the sale of Indian and Foreign liquor any where in the state of Andhra Pradesh under the Foreign Liquor Rules which are special rules made in supersession of all existing rules on the subject.
The two questions that are raised by the rival contentions of the parties are (1) whether the Foreign liquor Rules are special rules and prevail
over Rule 3 (3) of the Lease of Liquor Rules; (2) what is the true content and extent of conflict of 3 (3) of the Lease of Liquor Rules, with the Foreign Liquor Rules.
Now, the Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 were made by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 72 read with sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act; 1968 and in supersession of all rules on the subject. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 1, the said Rules shall extend to ail the areas where the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 is in force. Rule 2 makes the Rules applicable for the import, export, transport and sale of foreign liquors, Indian Liquors, Wines and Beer. Rule 23 enumerates the various categories of licences that can be obtained for the sale of foreign liquor and Indian liquor. Rule 26 prescribed the authorities for the grant of several licences. Rule 31 provides the procedure for the grant of licences. As the title of the Rules itself viz., the Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 indicates, these rules are framed exclusively to regulate the grant of licences for the sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor for the import, export, transport and sale of foreign liquors, Indian Liquors, wines and beer. They are framed in exercise of the powers u/s 72 read with sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. Section 15 specifically prohibits the sale or purchase of any intoxicant except under the authority and in accordance with terms and conditions of a licence granted in that behalf.
The Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor) in Retail) Rules, 1969 are general rules and as the title itself indicates, the rules govern the lease of right to sell liquor in retail, while Foreign Liquor Rules are special Rules. It is now well established that in cases of conflict between specific provision and general provision, specific provision prevails over the general provision. The Supreme Court in The J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, held ;
The rule that general provisions should yield to specific provisions is not an arbitrary principle made by lawyers and judges but springs from the common understanding of men and women that when the same person gives two directions one covering a large number of matters in general and another to only some of them his intention is that these latter directions should prevail as regards these while as regards all the rest the earlier direction should have effect. In Pretty vs. Solly 1859 53 ER 1032 quoted in Craines on Statute Law at p. 206 (6th Edition) Romilly, M.R. mentioned the rule thus :-"The rule is that whenever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment in the same statute and the latter, taken in its most comprehensive sense, would overrule the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to effect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply.
Applying the rule of construction, it must be held that the Foreign Liquor Rules which is a specific provisions prevail over the Lease of Liquor Rules which is a general provision.
Let me then turn to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of Lease of Liquor Rules and examine its content and ascertain its applicability and extent of the conflict Rule 3 to the extent it is relevant reads:-
Lease of right to sell liquor in retail.
(1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, ever lease of right to sell liquor in retail shall be granted by auction. The lease shall ordinarily be for a period of one excise year;
Provided that where the Commissioner considers it necessary to grant the lease of right to sell liquor in retail in any other manner he shall do so with the perior approval of the Government.
xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx
(3) In the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and such other areas of the State as the Government may notify, the right to sell Indian and Foreign Liquors denatured spirit of other spirits, other than arrack and toddy shall only be by the grant of licence u/s 15 lead with section 28 of the Act.
A close reading of tub-role (3) would convince that there is no real conflict between sub-rule (3) and the Liquor Rules. This sub rule provides that in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and in such other area of the State as the Government may notify, the right to sell Indian and Foreign Liquors, denatured spirits and other spirits other than arrack and toddy shall only be by the grant of license. The words "right to sell......... shall only be the grant of licence" clearly show that the right to sell in the twin cites of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and in such other notified area, the right to sell Indian and foreign liquors cannot be granted by any other mode other than by the grant of a licence. So, in areas outside the Twin Cities and not notified, the right to sell Indian and Foreign Liquor other than arrack and toddy can be auctioned or granted by a licence. It should be borne in mind that sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 clearly provides that the right to sell liquor in retail Shall be granted by auction. Therefore, under sub-rule (3) the Government reserved that right to auction also the right to sell Indian and Foreign Liquors outside the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and such other areas not notified by the Government. In the context in which sub-rule (3) appears, I think only such an interpretation would lead to reasonable and practical results. Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition contains the following Rule at page 203:
If the language is capable of more than one interpretation, we ought to discard the more natural meaning if it leads to an unreasonable result, and adopt that interpretation which leads to a reasonably practicable result.
The Construction placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless the area is notified no licence can be granted for the sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor would lead to an unreasonable result and will not accord with what is regarded as "sensible" or "Common sense" interpretation in order to reach the true meaning of a statute.
The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in D. Sanjeevayya vs. Election Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh AIR 1967 S.C. 1211 where in Ramaswamy, J., observed:-- It is a well settled rule of construction that the provisions of a statute should be so read as to harmonise with one another and the provisions of one section cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
He also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council Palai Vs. T.J. Joseph and Others, wherein the Supreme Court Observed.
But it is an equally well-settled principle of law that there is a presumption against an implied repeal. Upon the assumption that the Legislature enacts laws-with a complete knowledge of all existing laws pertaining to the same subject the failure to add a repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal existing legislation. Of course this presumption will be rebutted if the provisions of the new Act are so inconsistent with the old ones that the two cannot stand together.
Placing reliance on the said decisions, the learned counsel submits that the Foreign Liquor Rules cannot be used to defeat sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of the lease of liquor Rules when there is no specific repeal of the said sub-rule. I have already held that the provisions of the Foreign Liquor Rules and Rule 3 (3) of the Lease of liquor Rules are not impossible of reconciliation. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.