9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mon grievance of the residents / people of the said locality is to forbear the respondents 1 to 3, viz., Union Territory of Puducherry represented by its Commissionercum-Secretary, Excise, Pudhucherry, Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Karaikkal, and the District Collector of Karaikkal from establishing Liquor shops or changing the business premises of Liquor Shops from Mahe Region to Karaikkal District. The petitioner, would aver that in respect of Karaikal, licenses were issued for the following category of Liquor Vending:- Retail Liquor Shops with attached Bar 45 Wholesale Liquor Shops 12 Hotel attached with Bar 6 Arrack Shop 31 Toddy Shop 29 [b] It is further averred by the petitioner that in pursuant to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in 2017 [2] SCC 281 [State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Vs K.Balu], the Liquor Shops which lie close to National-State Highways, were prohibited from operating their business and therefore, the licensees of the Liquor Shops of Mahe Region had started submitting their applications for shifting the Liquor Shops from that region to Karaikal and the distanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot consider the same and given a disposal to his objections by merely taking into consideration the judgment made in WA.No.1848/2003 and without citing any reason whatsoever and subsequently, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 15.06.2018, granted permission to the 4th respondent to shift his liquor business in FL-I business from Mahe region to RS.No.2/6, Ponpethy Revenue Village, Nedungdu, Karaikal and therefore, filed WP.No.15661/2018 to challenge the legality of the said order. [e] In WP.No.11767/2018, the petitioner made a challenge to the order of the 2nd respondent, viz., the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Government of Puducherry dated 27.03.2018, raising the very same ground. Both writ petitions had been entertained and notices were ordered and obtained interim orders in the said writ petition. [f] The private respondent-4th respondent, viz., M/s.Cee Cee &Cee Cees, had filed WMP.No.20870/2018, to vacate order of interim stay dated 05.07.2018 granted in the said writ petition. The official respondents 1 to 3 had filed the common counter affidavit and after narrating the earlier round of litigations, took a stand that in pursuant to the common order dated 26.02.2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding such a permission, the number of liquor shops in Karaikal is bound to increase and it is not in public interest and therefore, prayed for allowing of the writ petitions. 3 Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to the Pondicherry Excise Act 1970 and the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970 and made the following submissions:- ● Section 2[22] of the Act, 1970, defines ''place'' and in the light of the limited scope of the definition, it cannot be said that the place includes the area also. ● Chapter VI of the Rules, 1970 speaks about the Sale of Indian or Foreign Liquors and Rule 113 deals with licenses and sub-rule [1] deals with F.L.-1 License and in the case on hand, the 4th respondent possesses FL-1 License. Rule 114 speaks about the Application for License and sub-rule [iii] of Rule 114 says the location of the premises where the applicant intends to conduct the business under a license. Rule 122 says about the license to be fixed in an area and Rule 141 speaks about the General conditions of license/permit and it comes under Chapter VIII, which deals with Denatured spirit and denatured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from change of business premises of liquor shop from Mahe region to Karaikal region / shifting / relocating or granting license to locate liquor shop at Karaikal, Puducherry. ➔ The Hon'ble First Bench of this Court, vide common order dated 26.02.2018, had disposed of both writ petitions and taking note of the plea made by the 4th respondent that his application for shifting is pending before the concerned authority for quite some time, had directed the concerned respondent to consider the said application and give a disposal in accordance with law, along with the objections raised by the writ petitioner, viz., Tvl.K.M.Baskar and Devamani [petitioner herein]. The Deputy Commissioner [Excise], in compliance of the said order, issued a Notice dated 23.02.2018 to the petitioner to attend the personal hearing on 01.03.2018 and accordingly, the petitioner appeared and gave a statement and it was recorded in writing. In the statement, the petitioner had stated that there area already 35 liquor shops and that in Kulakudi village, only 35 houses are there and already Toddy and Arrack shops are located in the said villa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warrants interference and prayed for allowing of both writ petitions. 8 Per contra, Mr.A.Gandhiraj, learned Government Pleader [Puducherry] appearing for the Union Territory of Puducherry would submit that the word ''place'' as defined under section 2[22] of the Act, 1970, is only an inclusive definition and it applies to shifting from one region to another region/one place to another place also and as such, the petitioner is not having any tenable legal ground to make a challenge to the impugned order. It is the further submission of the learned Government Pleader [Puducherry] that the petitioner had placed heavy reliance on the common order dated 07.03.2003 made in WP.No.39661/2002 [cited supra] and no doubt, in the said order, it has been expressly held in paragraph No.17 that the expression ''from one place to another'' can only mean the locality or area or panchayat or Commune and will not enable shifting from a total different area and the said order has been put to challenge by one Kalyani in WA.No.1848/2003 as well as the Commissioner [Excise]-cum-Secretary to the Government, Revenue as well as the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Puducherry an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before it. 12 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the decision reported in 2017 [2] SCC 281 [The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and others Vs. K.Balu and another] [cited supra] had addressed the issue relating to the presence of liquor vending on National and State Highways across the Country and the alarming statistics as to the occurrence of roads accidents on account of drunk and driving and in paragraph No.24, has issued the following directions:- ''24 We accordingly, hereby direct and order as follows:- i. All States and Union Territories shall forthwith cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along National and State Highways. ii.The prohibition contained in [i] above shall extend to and include stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority. iii.The existing licences which have already been renewed prior to the date of this order shall continue until the term of the licence expires but no later than 1 April 2017. iv.All signages and advertisements of the availability of liquor shall be prohibited and existing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the Interlocutory Applications, modified the earlier order. Subsequently, miscellaneous applications have been filed and it was argued by the respective learned counsel appearing for the applicants therein that the expression ''municipal areas'' in paragraph No.7 of the order dated 11.07.2017 was not indeed, to exclude areas within the jurisdiction of local self governing Bodies and therefore, they prayed for appropriate direction to obviate uncertainties in the applications. The Hon'ble Apex Court, having taken into account of the statement, expressed the view that the State Governments would not be precluded from determining whether the principle which has been laid down in the order dated 11.07.2017 in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh [SLP [C] No.10243/2017] should also apply to areas covered by Local Self Governing Bodies and Statutory Development Authorities and the State Governments are to make the said determination since it is question of fact as to whether an area covered by the Local Self Governing Body is proximate to a municipal agglomeration or is sufficiently developed as to warrant the application of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d will not enable shifting to a totally different area and the said order was put to challenge by one Kalyani as well as by the Commissioner [Excise]cum-Secretary to Government, Revenue, Government of Pondicherry and the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Puducherry in WA.Nos.1848 and 655/2003 respectively and vide common judgment dated 06.09.2005, this Court had allowed the writ appeals and thereby set aside the above cited order passed in WP.No.39661/2002 and granted liberty to the 3rd respondent in WA.No.1848/2003 [petitioner in WP.No.39661/2002] to make a challenge in the event of any order being passed for shifting of the liquor shop in an appropriate proceedings before appropriate Forum. The 4th respondent herein, in terms of the order of the Apex Court, submitted an application dated 28.02.2017 to the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Karaikal, praying for appropriate permission to shift liquor business to Karaikal and on becoming aware of the same, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 02.06.2017 to the Sub Collector [Excise], Collectorate, Karaikal, as well as to the Deputy Collector [Excise], Karaikal, Puducherry District. 18 One K.M.Baskar as well as the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2018 made in WP.Nos.13081 and 15953/2017. 20 The definition ''place'' found in section 2[22] of the Act, 1970, is an inclusive definition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2011 [2] SCC 52 : AIR 2011 SC 428 [Delhi Development Authority Vs Bholanath Sharma] has observed that the definition may be in the form of ''means and inputs'' and it is having a very wide meaning and the prima facie use of it, excludes limitation. It is also settled position of law that the words of Statute as prima facie be given their ordinary meaning and the language or phraseology employed by the legislature is precise and plain. 21 This Court, keeping in mind, the said principles, is called upon to adjudicate whether the impugned order and the other consequential orders of the 3rd respondent, permitting the licensee, viz., the 4th respondent, to shift his liquor shop under FL-1 License from Mahe Region to Karaikal Region. 22 In AIR 1937 NAGPUR 102 [Emperor Vs. Basantilal Juthalal Marwadi], the word ''place'' as defined under Public Gambling Act, 1867, as amended by the C.P.Act 3 of 1927, came up for consideration and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper and not as the learned Additional Advocate General would read as ''area'' within a circumscribed part of the State determined by an outside authority.'' 25 In the decision reported in 1988 [Supp] SCC 342 [Collector of Customs, Calcutta Vs. M/s.Sun Industries], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the appeal filed u/s.130-E[b] of the Customs Act, 1962, has considered the meaning of ''place'' and also considered the definition of the word ''place'', according to the Webster Comprehensive Dictionary International Edition page 694 and in paragraph No.8, observed that, ''the expression ''place'' will depend for its connotation on the context in which it is use.......The word ''place'' is generally found in conjunction with other words which give it a colour, and is usually controlled by its context.'' 26 Chapter XII of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970, speaks about the Special Conditions of License for sale of Arrack and in the case on hand, the petitioner is having FL-1 License. Chapter VI deals with the Sale of Indian or Foreign Liquors and Rule 113[1] deals with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the shop, the licensing authority may either on the application of the licensee or otherwise and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, direct shifting of a shop from one place to another and the licensee shall not be entitled to any compensation on account of such shifting. 28 In 1988 [Supp] SCC 342 [M/s.Sun Industries] [cited supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, ''the expression ''place'' will depend for its connotation on the context in which it is used. The word is generally found in conjunction with other words which give it a colour, and is usually controlled by its context.'' 29 In the Principle of Statutory Interpretation 14th Edition, in Chapter II Synopsis II, while dealing with the natural and grammatical meaning, the learned author observed that, ''natural ordinary meaning of the words should not be departed from, unless it can be shown that the logical context in which words are used requires a different meaning'' and also quoted the observations of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gajendra Khatkari in Hyden's case that, ''words used in the material provisions of the Statute must be i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent has also placed reliance upon the order dated 23.02.2018 made in WP.No.4067/2018 [R.Senthilkumar Vs. Union Territory of Puducherry represented by the Commissioner, Department of Excise, Puducherry and another],, wherein, a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from reestablishing or re-locating or grant a license to liquor shop at Madukkarai village, Puducherry or its adjoining area. However, the points urged herein, have not been made in the said writ petition and the said writ petition came to be disposed on the facts of the said case and as such, it is distinuguishable. 33 Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the non-compliance of Rule 122 of the Rules 1970, in pursuant to the order dated 15.11.2018 passed in these writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader [Puducherry] has produced the files and on going through the same, this Court found that the said Rule has been complied with in letter and spirit. Therefore, the point urged in that regard is to be rejected. 34 In the considered opinion of the Court, the area defined under section 2[22] of the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970, and other Rules of the Pondicherry Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
