Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1692 - HC - Indian LawsIrrationality - Grant of licence to collect empty bottles and sell eatables in the Bar attached to the TASMAC liquor retail vending shops - first and foremost ground of challenge is that the licence fee, which has been fixed is very high - Rule 9A in the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules 2003 - no malafides found. Held that:- Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no allegation of malafides. A faint plea of legal mala fide was raised by Mr.Umapathy, and to drivehome such a contention, the learned counsel referred to certain statistics with regard to the number of shops, which were in existence in Tiruppur District from the year 2014-15 and in how many shops there were successful bidders for the bar and the remaining shops though had a bar attached were illegally run by TASMAC themselves as there were no bidders. Irrationality - It was argued that the method of fixation of the upset price was irrational, since the volume of sales in the bar has to be considered and not the volume of sales in the retail vending shops - Held that:- Admittedly, the exclusive right to vend liquor vest with TASMAC. The licence to be granted by TASMAC for which the impugned notification has been issued, is to sell eatables and collect empty bottles in the bar attached to the shop. The normal concept of a bar cannot be adopted in the present batch of cases, unlike the bars, which are functioning in hotels where licence is granted in form FL-II and FL-III. Though the respondent/TASMAC states that the eatables ought to be sold in the “bar” attached to the shop to term the premises as a “bar” in the general sense, as it is popularly understood as incorrect. This is so because, the licensee is not permitted to vend liquor in the premises termed as “bar” attached to the shop. TASMAC does not vend liquor in the premises termed as “bar” attached to the shop - It is not for this Court to examine as to whether fixation of 3% or 2.5% or 1.5% or 1% of the turnover of the shop for computing the quantum of Security Deposit/licence fee. On a careful reading of the tender conditions, it is clear that the turnover for the month of October, 2017 is being taken for consideration for calculating the Security Deposit payable by the intending tenderer by calling upon him to pay 3%/2.5% or 1% of such amount. This fixation cannot be stated to be irrational, as it has been shown that there should be some yardstick for the TASMAC to arrive at the quantum of Security Deposit. The respondent/TASMAC has not fixed a static amount as upset price as found in other bid documents. The petitioner cannot equate the licence, which will be granted to them as any other licence issued by the Government or Government Corporations. But for the permission granted by TASMAC to create a faclity for permitting customers to consume liquor in a designated area, no independent right flows in favour of the petitioners. There are specific prohibition under the Rules, which prohibit establishment of shops near places of worship, educational institution etc. Thus, it is concluded that there is no irrationality or arbitrariness in the conditions stipulated in the impugned tender notification and the basis for calculating the Security Deposit and the monthly licence fee has been shown to be done in an appropriate manner taking into consideration the turnover of a particular retail vending shop. Apart from that the licence fee does not remain static throughout the period of licence, as was earlier, but would depend upon the sale in the preceding month - the petitioners have not made out any case for interference with the impugned notification and accordingly, these Writ Petitions fail - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|