Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

According to the petitioners they were grantees of the exclusive privilege licence of shops for the local area comprising of Sirohi Revenue District excluding the Janjati (tribal) area. Abu Road and Mount Abu Municipal areas, including the Janjati area as notified by the Presidential Order known as the Scheduled Areas (Rajasthan State) Order, 1981, formed part of Sirohi Revenue District. The District Excise Officer, Sirohi did not allow or permit the petitioners to open their sub-shops of country liquor in the municipal areas of Abu Road and Mount Abu on the ground that those two areas were included in the Janjati area. This led to the shortfall in the sale of country liquor as they could not fulfil the minimum demand by lifting the quantum of exclusive privilege for the fiscal years 1991-92 and 1992-93. Instead M/s Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, the respondent no.5 (hereinafter referred as the Sugar Mills, for short) which were holding the licence for selling by retail the country liquor through their five shops and sub-shops in the Abu Road and Mount Abu municipal areas for and upto the year ending 31.3.1991 were renewed the licence for the fiscal years 1991-92 and 1992-93 whereunder the Sugar Mills continued to operate their shops in those areas. The petitioners sought for the following reliefs :- (i) a declaration that the renewal of the licences granted by the District Excise Officer, Sirohi in favour of the Sugar Mills for the financial years 1991-92 and 1992-93 for the retail sale of country liquor in the municipal areas of Mount Abu and Abu Road was illegal and void; (ii) the policy decision of the State, if any, which prohibited the sale of country liquor in the above-said areas by any private licensee other than the Sugar Mills was illegal and void; and (iii) that the petitioners be held entitled to vend country liquor by retail sale in the municipal areas of Mount Abu and Abu Road for the said years and the amount of due price and margin money paid by the Sugar Mills, respondent no.5 to the State Government be adjusted towards the exclusive privilege amount payable by the petitioners.

According to respondent nos.1 to 4, the petitioners had submitted tender for 35 shops and 48 sub-shops included in the Sirohi group of shops. The petitioners were not granted exclusive privilege licence for vending country liquor for the entire Sirohi Revenue District. The tender notice clearly specified the group of 35 shops and 48 sub-shops designated as Sirohi group of shops which is tried to be confused with shops in the entire Sirohi Revenue District. The petitioners knew it well from the very beginning that in so far as the areas of Abu tehsil including Abu Road and Mount Abu were concerned licences for selling country liquor by retail were being granted invariably over a number of years in favour of the Sugar Mills which was a Government of Rajasthan undertaking. No private party was ever allowed such a privilege by way of licence. It was the policy of the State, well within the knowledge of the petitioners, that to protect the tribals from exploitation at the hands of the private licensees, sale by private licensees was not allowed in the tribal areas. The licences which were held by the Sugar Mills for the period expiring on 31.3.1991 were renewed for the next two financial years consistently with the policy of the State. Exclusive privilege for vending country liquor by licence in the municipal areas of Abu Road and Mount Abu neither formed the subject-matter of the tender notice nor could it have been. The petitioners did not submit tenders for Mount Abu and Abu Road. The licences issued to the petitioners did not relate to any shop at Mount Abu or Abu Road insofar as vending of country liquor by retail sale is concerned; on the contrary the licences granted to the petitioners for sale by retail of IMFL included shops in the towns of Mount Abu and Abu Road. The petitioners made a default in payment of the fee for exclusive privilege grant. On 31.12.1991 an amount of Rs.98,30,468 was outstanding against the petitioners. The petition is an attempt to wriggle out of the petitioners obligation to pay the amount by pleading a false and imaginary ground.

After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge directed the petition to be dismissed. Briefly stated, the learned Single Judge upon evaluation of several documents brought on record by the parties upheld the pleas raised by the respondents. The learned Single Judge found that the notice inviting tenders and the tender submitted by the petitioners were both for the grant of exclusive privilege for a group of shops termed as Sirohi group of shops which comprised of 35 main shops and 48 sub-shops. The petitioners were trying to confuse Sirohi group of shops with shops in the revenue district of Sirohi. The notice inviting tenders, the tenders submitted by the petitioners and the licence issued to the petitioners all related to Sirohi group of shops. The 35 main shops and 48 sub-shops were situated only in four tehsils of District Sirohi namely Revdar, Pinvara, Sirohi and Sheoganj. None of the said shops or sub-shops was situated in Mount Abu and Abu Road which formed part of Abu Road tehsil. This was in conformity with the State policy of 1981 adopted in response to Central Government directives. The petitioners have been in the liquor trade since long. At the time of submitting their tenders they knew it well that in Mount Abu and Abu Road licences had never been granted to any private contractors for vending country liquor. Such licences in Mount Abu and Abu Road were invariably issued in favour of the Sugar Mills, a Government undertaking, eversince 1st April, 1982. The entire Abu Road tehsil including the areas of Abu Road and Mount Abu was declared a scheduled area under the Presidential notification. Merely because Abu Road and Mount Abu were constituted as municipality under the Rajasthan Municipality Act, it could not be held that these local areas were excluded from the scheduled area declared by the President of India. On these findings the learned Single Judge held the petitioners not entitled to any relief and directed the petition to be dismissed.

It cannot be denied nor has it been that eversince 1.4.1982 continuously and uninterruptedly the Sugar Mills only were having the licence for sale of country liquor by retail in Mount Abu and Abu Road tehsils. Even on 6.2.1991 when the tender notice was issued by the Excise Commissioner, the licence granted in favour of the Sugar Mills was already in operation. The petitioners were well aware of the policy of the State Government having been in this trade for long. Right from April 1991 till February 1992 the petitioners never applied for opening any sub-shops of theirs for the sale of country liquor at Mount Abu and/or Abu Road, though they had submitted several applications from time to time for obtaining permission of the District Excise Officer for opening shops/sub- shops in various areas covered by their licences. They were seeking approval of the location of the shops/sub-shops at the places situated in 4 tehsils of Sirohi District excluding Abu Road tehsil. For a period of about 11 months, the petitioners exploited their licences and enjoyed the exclusive privilege of selling by retail the country liquor in Sirohi District excluding Mount Abu and Abu Road tehsils. It is only when they fell into arrears of the licence fee and a demand was raised against them that on 4.3.1992 they raised a plea of having been wrongfully excluded from exercising the exclusive privilege for sale by retail of country liquor in Mount Abu and Abu Road areas and for that purpose served a notice seeking the withdrawal of the demand raised by the State and demanding permission in future for opening sub-shops in Mount Abu and Abu Road Municipal areas. The plea raised in the notice dated 4.3.1992 that the petitioners had become aware of the correct factual and legal position by making enquiries in the last week of February 1992 was apparently false and highly belated. The plea that on further enquiries being made and legal advice being sought it has transpired that Mount Abu and Abu Road were not included in the Janjati Kshetra (tribal area) was raised by the petitioners by making an averment in that regard in the rejoinder which they had filed on 15.2.1993. The plea was not raised in the writ petition as originally filed. Yet another very material fact which exposes the falsity of the petitioners plea is that the reserve price fixed by the State for exclusive privilege for vending country liquor for Sirohi group of shops was based on the previous years figures of sales of the notified 35 main shops and 48 sub-shops, wherein the figures of sales of shops at Mount Abu and Abu road were not included. This plea raised by the respondents was supported by the documents of unimpeachable veracity brought on record and duly supported by affidavit.