Gauhati High Court
Prasanta Bura Gohain vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 22 February, 2021
Author: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010011922021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/441/2021
PRASANTA BURA GOHAIN
S/O. NANDESWAR BUR GOHAIN, VILL. CHANWARIA, P.O. MACHKHOWA,
P.S. DHAKUAKHANA, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN-787055 AND
PROPRIETOR OF (BURAGOHAIN ENTERPRISE) HAVING ITS PLACE OF
BUSINESS AT ZOO NARENGI ROAD, C/O. SRI ATUL CHANDRA DEKA
GEETA NAGAR PATH, HOUSE NO.103, WARD NO.24, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EXCISE
DEPTT., SACHIVALAYA, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM.
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
4:THE SUPDT. OF EXCISE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
5:THE SUPDT. OF EXCISE
DHEMAJI
DIST. DHEMAJI
Page No.# 2/15
ASSAM
PIN-787057.
6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781001.
7:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN-787057
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Linked Case : WP(C)/3096/2020
UTPAL BARUAH
S/O LATE MAHENDRA KR. BARUAH
R/O HOUSE NO. 3
NAHARANI PATH
HATIGAON
GUWAHATI
P.S.-HATIGAON
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
EXCISE DEPARTMENT
SACHIVALAYA
DISPUR
ASSAM-781006
Page No.# 3/15
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
NAGAON
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM
6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM
7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(M)
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. S BORTHAKUR
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/5055/2020
DIPALI KAKOTI
W/O. LT. PRANAB KAKOTI
R/O. BONDA
BIRKUCHI
GUWAHATI-26
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EXCISE DEPTT.
Page No.# 4/15
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EXCISE DEPTT.
DIPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM.
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
ASSAM.
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI-781001.
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
DIBRUGARH
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
6:THE SUPDT. OF EXCISE
DIBRUGARH
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. A KHANIKAR
Advocate for : SC
EXCISE DEPTT. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/4826/2020
GAYATRI BORA
D/O LATE PRABODH CHANDRA BORA
RESIDENT OF JURIPAR
SIX MILE
PANJABARI ROAD
PO KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI
DSIT KAMRUP M ASSAM 781022
Page No.# 5/15
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EXCISE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EXCISE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
3:COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
4:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
NAGAON
ASSAM 782001
5:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
GUWAHATI 1
------------
Advocate for : MR. S BHUYAN
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/4872/2020
LITUMONI NATH
W/O PANKAJ DEKA
RESIDENT OF BOKAKHAT TOWN
PO AND PS BOKAKHAT
DIST GOLAGHAT
785612
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
Page No.# 6/15
EXCISE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
SONITPUR
ASSAM 784001
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
TEZPUR 784001
ASSAM
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT
785702
------------
Advocate for : MR B KAUSHIK
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
ORDER
22.02.2021 WP(C)/4826/2020 Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department, Assam.
The petitioner is aggrieved due to non consideration of her prayer for shifting of an IMFL "OFF" license by giving retrospective effect to the amended Rule 294A of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016. The petitioner has a license of a retail shop of IMFL (Wine Shop). The license was issued to the petitioner on 02.09.1999 for the area of Srimanta Sankardev Path, Page No.# 7/15 Nagaon town in the district of Nagaon. But due to some problem, she applied for shifting of her wine shop from the existing place of business at Nagaon Town to Tripura Road, Jawahar Nagar, Guwahati on 22.02.2019. The NOC for such shifting was issued by the Deputy Commissioners, Nagaon and Kamrup (M) more than one year ago. The departmental inspection/enquiry was also conducted and the reports are in favour of shifting of petitioner's wine shop. After issuance of NOC by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, the wine shop of the petitioner was closed. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed seeking for an appropriate writ/order to the respondent authority for passing necessary order allowing shifting of the petitioner's wine shop.
WP(C)/3096/2020 Heard Mr S. Borthakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department, Assam.
The petitioner is aggrieved due to non consideration of his prayer for shifting of an IMFL "OFF" license by giving retrospective effect to the amended Rule 294A of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016. The petitioner has a license of a retail shop of IMFL (Wine Shop). The license was issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2001 for the area of GNRB road, Fouzdarpatty, Haiborgaon in the district of Nagaon. But due to some problem, he applied for shifting of his wine shop from the existing place of business at GNRB road, Fouzdarpatty, Haiborgaon in the district of Nagaon to Guwahati, Hatigaon Main road in the district of Kamrup (M) on 06.11.2019. But the respondent authority did not consider his prayer. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed seeking for an appropriate writ/order to the respondent authority for passing necessary order allowing shifting of the petitioner's wine shop.
WP(C)/4872/2020 Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department, Assam.
The petitioner is an IMFL"ON" licensee, who submitted a shifting proposal on 26.12.2019 for shifting of her licensed premises from the existing location at Bokakhat Town in the district of Golaghat to Vill-Dighaljuli, district Sonitpur due to discontinuation of the tenancy agreement by the landlord pursuant to NOC granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat. The shifting proposal of the petitioner was processed and enquiry was conducted Page No.# 8/15 resulting recommendation of the shifting of the licensed premises by the Superintendent of Excise, Sonitpur. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the non-refundable shifting fee of Rs. 1 Lac on 20.01.2020. However, on the pretext of contemplated amendment of the Assam Excise Rules prohibiting inter-district transfer of any licensed premises, the shifting proposal of the petitioner was kept on hold for some time. Subsequently, the same was processed and finally the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.10.2020 was forwarded to the Commissioner of Excise on 12.10.2020. However, before granting the sanction by the Government and issuance of the formal shifting order, the Assam Excise (amendment) Rules, 2020 came into force w.e.f. 31.10.2020 inserting Rule 294(A), which prohibits inter-district transfer of any licensed premises. Interestingly, on the pretext of Rule 294A, the respondent authorities declined to issue the necessary shifting order in favour of the petitioner though the shifting application of the petitioner was submitted way back in the year 2019 and the proposal was also submitted to the Commissioner of Excise, Assam before coming into force the provision of Rule 294A. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed seeking for an appropriate writ/order to the respondent authority for passing necessary order allowing shifting of the petitioner's wine shop.
WP(C)/5055/2020 Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department, Assam.
The petitioner is an IMFL"ON" licensee which is running at Bonda Birkuchi, Guwahati. The petitioner applied for shifting to Usung Dhaba, Tingkhong in the Dibrugarh district due to poor business transaction. For this purpose she applied the same following due procedure of law. The Deputy Commissioners, Kamrup (M) and Dibrugarh as well as the Superintendent of Excise recommended the same after proper verification and sent the said proposal to the Commissioner of Excise for perusal and necessary action. The Commissioner of Excise forwarded the same to the Principal Secretary, Excise Department recommending the same. But the Principal Secretary sat over the matter till date without any reasons even after repeated requests and representation. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed seeking for an appropriate writ/order to the respondent authority for passing necessary order allowing shifting of the petitioner's wine shop.
Page No.# 9/15 WP(C)/441/2021 Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department, Assam.
The petitioner is an IMFL"ON" licensee, and operating his business at Machkhowa Chariali, Village- Machkhowa, in the district of Dhemaji since the year 1999. The petitioner had made a representation before Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji thereby praying for granting of No Objection Certificate and permission for shifting of the business establishment of the petitioner from Machkhowa Chariali, Dhemaji to Kamrup (M). Accordingly the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji issued NOC in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, as per requirement, the petitioner has also obtained NOC from the Guwahati Municipal Corporation paying necessary fees. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 12.10.2020 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) thereby seeking permission/final approval for setting up IMFL "OFF" Retail Shop/Wine Shop at Mother Teresa Road, Zoo Narengi Road, Geetanagar, Guwahati-24 in the district of Kamrup (M). But till date the authority concerned has not passed any order on the said representation without any lawful and valid reason, whereas till date a considerable time had elapsed. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed seeking for an appropriate writ/order to the respondent authority for passing necessary order allowing shifting of the petitioner's wine shop.
The factual aspect of the writ petitioners are taken note of and heard the learned counsel. The petitioners in all the writ petitions applied for transfer of the licenses of IMFL "OFF" shops inter district before the introduction of the amended Rule 294-A through the Assam Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2020. As the issue involved in the batch of writ petitions are similar as such this common order is passed on the basis of the factual aspect pleaded in WP(C) No. 4826/2020 The Government of Assam in Excise Department vide Notification dated 30 th October, 2020 during the pendency for disposal of the applications seeking for transfer of licenses inter-district introduced the Assam Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2020 thereby inserting new Rule 294-A after the existing Rule 294 which is extracted herein below:-
"294-A (1): The shifting of premises licensed for wholesale or retail vend of foreign liquor, country spirit and heritage alcoholic beverages from one location to another within the Page No.# 10/15 same district shall be allowed by the Excise Commissioner or the District Collector as the case may be, with prior approval of the State Government. No inter district shifting of any licensed premises shall be allowed.
(2) The shifting of licensed premises shall be subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions, namely:-
(a) That the Gaon Panchayat/Municipality or Town Committee/Municipal Corporation concerned in whose area the premises licensed for wholesale or retail vend is proposed to be shifted has given no objection to that effect.
(b) That the proposed premises are free from the distance restriction and other criteria as provided under rule 289.
(c) That the Excise Commissioner or the District Collector, as the case may be, shall consider only such proposals where the shifting is essential due to the following situations:-
(i) licencee whose premises are affected by the implementation of Development Scheme such as road widening or other similar reasons;
(ii) cases where the licencee is running his licensed shop at a place under rental deed and the landlord or owner of the place do not agree to extend the term of the lease;
(iii) cases where the shifting is essential due to Hon'ble Court's order;
(iv) cases where the Excise Commissioner or the District Collector as the case may be, is satisfied that the shifting is required arising out of circumstances such as change of existing rules or procedures, which are beyond the control of the licencee;
(v) cases where the Excise Commissioner or the District Collector is satisfied that the shifting is necessary in the interest of the public".
The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner seeking for transfer of her wine shop shall be governed by the provision of Rule 294 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 which stipulates that the opening, shifting and closures of any licensed premises shall be done by the District Collector with the previous sanction of the State Government or the subsequent amended provision of Section 294-A wherein a specific bar had been imposed against inter district transfer of a license granted to a licensee. In the present case, the petitioner sought transfer of her license from the district of Nagaon to the district of Kamrup (M).
Page No.# 11/15 Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner applied for the transfer of her license prior to the coming into force the amended Rule 294-A and as such the petition is required to be disposed of by the Rules holding the field at the time of filing of the application. In support of the said contention Mr. Choudhury submits that the spirit of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 wherein it is stipulated unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal or anything duly done or suffered therein has its application. In support of his further submission, Mr. Choudhury relies the case law of Ashok Lanka and Another -Vs- Rishi Dixit and Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 598. As per the ratio a statute must be read reasonably. A statute should not be read in such a manner which results in absurdity. A statute, on its plain language, although postulates a prospective operation, it cannot be held to be retrospective only because it would apply for the excise year for which applications were invited despite the fact that the selection process made there under is over. The State is bound by the terms of the advertisement and the Rules existing at that time. The statutory authorities and the applicants are expected to follow the law as it stood thence. No step could be taken on the presupposition that the rule would be amended. It is also not a case where draft rules were already in existence and such draft rules had been applied, which could otherwise be permissible in law. But a situation of this nature is not contemplated in law. Further relying the case of State of Punjab and Others -Vs- Bhajan Kaur and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 112 Mr. Choudhury submits that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, save a right accrued and / or a liability incurred. It does not create a right. When Section 6 applies, only an existing right is saved thereby. The existing right of a party has to be determined on the basis of the statute which was applicable and not under the new one. If a new Act confers a right, it does so with prospective effect when it comes into force, unless expressly stated otherwise. With the aid of the said ratio Mr. Choudhury submits that though the petitioner applied for transfer of her license from the district of Nagaon to the district of Kamrup (M), the respondents restrained themselves from passing any order on the anticipation that the Rule 294 was going to be amended. Even if under such circumstances, as the Gazette Notification does not give the effect retrospectively of the Rule 294 A as such it is to be considered that the subsequent amendment is prospective in nature.
Page No.# 12/15 The said contention is vehemently objected by Mr. Goswami and to that effect Mr. Goswami relies Rule 294 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016. He wants to project that the said rule provides two stages, mainly the sanction of the Government at first and then only the District Collector is required to move and process the transfer application. The petitioner applied for the transfer of her license and that itself is not sufficient in order to claim the relief in the present writ petition inasmuch as the District Collector is supposed to act only with the previous sanction of the State Government which till date is yet not sanctioned nor prior to coming in force of the amendment. Referring Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 Mr. Goswami confines to Sub-Section 6(b) and (c) and submits that the spirit of the said section no doubt affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed but in all the writ petitions even if some actions were initiated by the District Collector the required sanction of the State Government was not granted for which the said move on the part of the Collector are void-ab-initio. It is the contention of Mr. Goswami that even if the petitioner applied under the old Rule 294 but subsequent to 30.10.2020, the amendment introduced shall hold the field.
Mr. Goswami relies the case of State of Tamil Nadu -Vs- M/s. Hind Stone and others reported in (1981) 2 SCC 205. Relying the ratio it is submitted by Mr. Goswami that merely seeking for transfer of the license by the petitioner no vested right is accrued on the petitioner inasmuch as the sanction is required to be given by the Government. If there is no vested right, accordingly the petitioner cannot claim that she is entitled for a favourable order thereby allowing the transfer of the said license. Relying the case of Messrs Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. and M. R. Pratap -Vs- Director of Enforcement, New Delhi , reported in 1969(2) SCC 412 Mr. Goswami further submits that the provision of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, applies when the repeal is of a Central Act or Regulation and not of a Rule. Further he relied the case of P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd and Others -Vs- Union of India and Others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 268. In view of the said contentions, Mr. Goswami sought for dismissal of this writ petition.
I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. In the present case, the petitioner was issued license way back in the year 1999 in a location within the Nagaon district. On 22.02.2019 the petitioner applied for transfer of the said license to Page No.# 13/15 Guwahati. Necessary enquiry was conducted and the reports were submitted. It is the allegation that there was intentional delay in the said process of granting the sanction by the government for the transfer. Rule 294 of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016 says the opening, shifting and closures of any licensed premises shall be done by the District Collector with the previous sanction of the State Government. Such opening, shifting and closure shall not be granted - (a) unless it has been satisfactorily established by local enquiry that proposed action is necessary in the interest of public; (b) until any objection, which may have been filed on the subject have been considered by the District Collector; (c) unless the Application Fee prescribed is paid. Thus there is no ambiguity that only with the previous sanction the District Collector is required to process any application for transfer. Normally a licensee cannot claim issuance of a license by way of right unless certain criteria are satisfied. The criteria set out depend on the policy of the Government more specifically under the Assam Excise Act and the Rules. So, as the sanction of the Government is sine qua non the petitioner cannot claim the benefit as a vested right.
In this regard the ratio laid down in State of Tamil Nadu -Vs- M/s. Hind Stone and others (supra) is relevant. A similar issue cropped up before the Apex Court wherein it was raised that the applications made 60 days or more before the date of G. O. Ms. No. 1312 (December 2, 1977) should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 had not come into force. It was also contended that even applications for grant of lease made long before the date of G.O. Ms. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C had not come into force. The submission was that it was not open to the Government to keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time and then to reject them on the basis of Rule 8-C introduced through G.O.Ms. 1312 notwithstanding the fact that the applications had been made long prior to the date on which Rule 8-C came into force. It was held though such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a Page No.# 14/15 particular way, by applying particular provisions.
If the said ratio is applied in the present case, it can very well be held that though the petitioner applied for transfer and requested sanction of the State Government long back before coming into force the amended Rule 294-A of the Excise Rules that itself cannot give a vested right to the petitioner to dispose of the said application on a date subsequent to the introduction of 294-A by applying the rule 294 as itself stood prior to amendment. The language of Rule 294 stipulates a previous sanction whereafter only the District Collector is required to process any application for transfer. It does not give a vested right to the petitioner to get an order of transfer and/or sanction from the Government. Had the previous sanction not a requisite from the Government, then the action of the District Collectors as stated in all the writ petitions would have been sufficient to hold that the petitioners are entitled for the transfer subject to fulfillment of the various conditions stipulated in Rule 294. The action of the District Collectors without the previous sanction of the Government are invalid and cannot give the petitioners an indefeasible right for inter district transfer of the licenses of the petitioners.
The intent of introducing the amended Rule 294-A is not under challenge nor this court can look into it unless the petitioner establishes that there was violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others -Vs- State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 574, the Apex Court held that a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as a beverage which also requires consideration for disposal of the writ petition. In this regard the ratio laid by the Apex Court in PTR Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd and others -Vs- Union of India and ors (Supra) is relevant wherein it was held that grant of license depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of the grant of the license and as such the court would not bind the government with a policy which was existing on the date of application as per previous policy. The relevant ratio is extracted hereinbelow:-
"5. It would, therefore, be clear that grant of licence depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of the grant of the licence. The court, thereof, would not bind the government with a policy which was existing on the date of application as per previous policy. A prior decision would not bind the Government for all times to come. When the Government is Page No.# 15/15 satisfied that change in the policy was necessary in the public interest, it would be entitled to revise the policy and lay down new policy. The court, therefore, would prefer to allow free play to the Government to evolve fiscal policy in the public interest and to act upon the same. Equally the Government is left free to determine priorities in the matters of allocations or allotments or utilization of its finances in the public interest. It is equally entitled, therefore, to issue or withdraw or modify the export or import policy in accordance with the scheme evolved. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners have no vested or accrued right for the issuance of permits on the MEE or NQE, nor is the Government bound by its previous policy. It would be open to the government to evolve the new schemes and the petitioners would get their legitimate expectations accomplished in accordance with either of the two schemes subject to their satisfying the conditions required in the scheme. The High Court, therefore, was right in its conclusion that the Government is not barred by the promises or legitimate expectations from evolving new policy in the impugned notification".
Accordingly I do not find any merit in these writ petitions which stand dismissed. The petitioners who deposited any amount in terms of the order of the District Collectors shall be refunded in view of the findings of this Court.
Accordingly though the petitioners applied for transfer of the respective licenses prior to coming in force of the amended Rule 294A in the Excise Rules, 2016, but this court cannot direct the Government to pass appropriate sanction without considering the prevailing Rule 294A and that too on a policy which was existing on the date of application as per previous policy. The writ petitions are dismissed and the respondents are directed to refund the deposits accordingly as per the Rules.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant