TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 1963 to March 31, 1966 for running a warehouse for supply of country liquor to excise vendors in the territory of Tripura. The Bengal Excise Act, 1909 (hereinafter called the Act) had been extended to that territory on August 1, 1962. The appellant's licence was subsequently extended for a further period of two years ending March 31, 1968. On November 6, 1967 the appellant applied to the Excise Collector praying that he should be permitted to continue the supply of country liquor for a period of five years commencing April 1, 1968. The Collector recommended the appellant's case to the Government on November 18, 1967 for extension of his licence for a further period of only two years. On December 22 1967 the Collector of Excise, Tripura, Agartala wrote to the appellant that he had been appointed by the Chief Commissioner a contractor for the supply of country liquor to the excise vendors for the territory of Tripura for five years i.e., from 1-4-68 to 31-3-73 at the existing rate i.e., Rs. 2.25 only being the cost of one L.P. litre of country liquor of 40 U.P. strength for sale to the excise vendors" of that territory from the Central Warehouse at Agartala. On January 13, 1963 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said license for 15 days and hereby give the licensee 15 days' notice of my intention to withdraw the said license and order that the said license be withdrawn with effect from 1 st September, 1970. Any fee paid in advance or deposit made by the licensee in respect thereof shall be refunded to him after deducting the amount, if any due to the Government. Sd/Omesh Saigal 5-7-70 Collector of Excise." Feeling aggrieved the appellant challenged this order in the court of the Judicial Commissioner by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which was dismissed by the impugned order. The order of the Collector dated July 6, 1970 was challenged by the appellant on a number of grounds, including invalidity of s. 43 of the Act and r. 164A of the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Judicial Commissioner in an exhaustive order came to the conclusion that the appellant had been given a contract for five years on the basis of his application dated November 6, 1967 without issuing a public notice as required by the proviso to S. 22(1) of the Act. This violation of the statutory provision invalidated the contract or the privilege of selling country liquor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 15 there is an express averment that the licence dated March 13, 1968 had been issued under the signatures of the Collector of Excise, Tripura. No doubt, it is added in the same paragraph that the Collector is not the authority to exercise power under s. 43 of the Act but this submission has not been substantiated at the bar and is contrary to the statutory provisions. Under s. 22, sub-s. (1), the Chief Commissioner is no doubt given the power of granting the exclusive privilege of manufacturing and selling country liquor or intoxicating drugs as mentioned in cls. (a) to (e) but sub-s. (2) of this section in express terms provides that no grantee of any privilege under sub-s. (1) shall exercise the same unless or until he has received a licence in that behalf from the Collector or the Excise Commissioner. In view of this provision it is obvious that it is the Collector who grants the licence within the contemplation of s. 43 and, therefore, it was this very officer who rightly granted the licence to the appellant and is empowered to withdraw the licence under s. 43. As sec. 43 provides for withdrawal of a licence for any cause other than those specified in s. 42 of the Act we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the amount of the fees payable in respect thereof for fifteen days, and may withdraw the license either (a) on the expiration of fifteen days' notice in writing of its intention to do so, or (b) forthwith, without notice. (2) If any license be withdrawn under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the said authority shall, in addition to remitting such sum as aforesaid, pay to the licensee such further sum (if any), by way of compensation, as the Excise Commissioner may direct. (3)When a license is withdrawn under sub-section (1), any fee paid in advance, or deposit made by the licensee inrespect thereof shall be refunded to him after deducting the amount (if any) due to the Government." Before dealing with the contention relating to Art. 19 we consider it proper to dispose of the argument founded on the ejusdem generis rule and Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was contended by Shri Sen that the only way in which s. 43 can be saved from the challenge of arbitrariness is to construe the expression "any cause other than" in s, 43(1) ejusdem generis with the causes specified in cll. (a) to (g) of s. 42 (1). We do not agree with this submission. The ejusdem generis rule,strives to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orthwith without notice as contemplated by s. 43 (1 ) (b) that the authority is under a further obligation to pay compensation as may be directed by the Excise Commissioner. Here the licence stood withdrawn on September 1, 1970 as stated in the intimation contained in the order dated July 6, 1970. That intimation fully complies with the provisions of s. 4 3. The argument that no show cause notice was given to the appellant before withdrawing the licence is equally. unacceptable for reasons just stated. The section does not contemplate two separate notices. The order dated July 6, 1970 also clearly state, that 15 days' notice was being given to,'the licensee regarding the intention of the Collector of Excise to withdraw his licence and it is also specifically mentioned in the order that the said licence would be withdrawn witheffect from September 1, 1970. The fact that tinder the notice the licence was to be withdrawn more than 15 days after the date of the notice did not cause the appellant any prejudice and indeed no objection was raised on this score. The contents of this order also quite clearly show that the appellant had ample opportunity of showingcause against the intenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end it subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by the Chief Commissioner. The grounds oh which the order of cancellation or suspension may be based are contained in cll.(a) to (g) of sub-s. Except for cll. (f) and (g) all other clauses suggest' some impropriety or default on the part of the licensee. Clause (f) speaks of cancellation or suspension on the written. requisition by the holder of the exclusive privilege under s. 22 and cancellation or suspension under cl. (g) is in accordance with the conditions of the licence,, pen-nit or pass in question. Sub-section (3) expressly negatives the right to, compensation and also to refund of fee and deposit authority granting a licence under the Act to withdraw the same for any cause other than those specified in s. 42 on remitting a sum ,equal to the amount of fee payable for 15 days. It is no doubt true that in s, 43 there, is no express mention of the precise grounds on which the licence can be withdrawn. But in our opinion keeping in view the nature of the trade or business for which the grant of licence under the Act is provided the cause contemplated by s. 43 must be such as may have reasonable nexus with the object of regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ps to invite tenders and fix a date for auction of. wholesale supply of country liquor. The cause for withdrawing the appellant's licence is in terms of the major policy decision taken by the Tripura Government and this, in our opinion, is a cause which, keeping in view the purpose and object of granting such exclusive privileges and licences, cannot be considered to be either irrelevant or collateral to that purpose and object. The appellant had, it may be recalled, secured his licence for the maximum period of five years as provided by r. 22(4) of the Tripura Excise Rules, 1962 for a nominal annual sum. On the withdrawal of the licence, fee for 15 days was remitted to him and the fee paid in advance and the deposit made were also directed to be refunded as provided by s. 43(3). But this apart, the learned Judicial Commissioner has also held in the judgment under appeal that since the contract for five years had been given to the appellant in complete violation of the statutory provision enacted in the proviso to s. 22(1) of the Act he could not claim to be a holder of any valid contract or of. a valid conclusion. Shri Mukherjee, however, did make a faint attempt the conclusions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
