Delhi High Court
Pioneer Gel Pvt Ltd vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 28 March, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment pronounced on: 28.03.2025
+ W.P.(C) 721/2025 and CM APPL.3550/2025
HARVINDER AND COMPANY .....Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OFNCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 15673/2024, CM APPL. 65831/2024
SHARDA PIPES PVT LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 16104/2024, CM APPL. 67686/2024
BERCH HOLDINGS PVT LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 16105/2024, CM APPL. 67688/2024
ALVIRA REALITY SERVICES PVT LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 17977/2024, CM APPL. 76515/2024
EXPO MEDIA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OFNCT OF DELH & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 17980/2024, CM APPL. 76521/2024
FORTUNE HEALTH CARE SERVICES .....Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 326/2025, CM APPL. 1548/2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
MANJIT SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 331/2025, CM APPL. 1556/2025
JASMEET SINGH SETHI .....Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 332/2025, CM APPL. 1558/2025
RAVINDER PAL SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 446/2025, CM APPL. 2136/2025
VRINDAVAN APPARELS PVT LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 451/2025, CM APPL. 2144/2025
KASHISH
MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES PVT LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 497/2025, CM APPL. 2323/2025
PIONEER GEL PVT LTD . .....Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 499/2025, CM APPL. 2327/2025
RADINTON TRADEX PVT LTD. .....Petitioners
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Presence:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
Mr. A. Maitri, Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar and Mr. Arnav Mudgal,
Advs. for petitioners.
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Singh, Mr. Priya Ranjan and Mr. Akash Soni,
Advocates for petitioner in W.P.(C) 326/2025.
Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD in W.P.(C)
721/2025, W.P.(C) 326/2025, W.P.(C) 331/2025 and W.P.(C)
332/2025.
Mr. Arun Maitri, Advocate along with Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar
and Mr. Arnav Mudgal, Advocates for petitioners in W.P.(C)
721/2025, W.P.(C) 15673/2024, W.P.(C) 16104/2024, W.P.(C)
16105/2024, W.P.(C) 17977/2024 & W.P.(C) 17980/2024.
Mr. Prashant Manchanda, ASC, Ms. Nancy Shah, Adv. and Mr. Sumit
Dabas, Excise Dept. in W.P.(C) 15673/2024, W.P.(C) 16104/2024 &
W.P.(C) 16105/2024.
Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC, Ms. Sheenu Priya, Mr. Vikas Saini, Mr.
Atik Gill and Mr. Sudhir, Advs. for GNCTD in W.P.(C) 17977/2024
and W.P.(C) 17980/2024.
Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Shandilya, Advocates for R-1
and R-2 in W.P.(C) 446/2025, W.P.(C) 497/2025 and W.P.(C)
499/2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners in the present petitions are private retail vendors who
were issued L-10 licences1 with validity upto 30.09.2021 by respondents
1
Retail vend of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor in Shopping Malls
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
under the erstwhile Delhi Excise Policy 2020-21 (hereinafter ‘old Excise
Policy’) for retail vending of Indian and Foreign Liquor in Delhi.
2. Vide the present petitions, the petitioners seek reliefs as under:
“(a) issue an appropriate writ, order, directions to the Respondents to
follow and to act in accordance with its own Notification / Order No.
(9)/Policy/Extn./Excise/2020-21/1938 dated 01.08.2022 and to issue
Retail Licences L-6, L-7, L-8, L-9, L-10, L-11 & L-23 as per its Old
Liquor Policy and not to discriminate with Private Retail Vendors while
following its Notification/ Order dated 01.08.2022;
(b) set-aside/quash the enforcement of Notification No. F.
(9)/Policy/Extn. /Excise/2020-21/612 dated 10.09.2021 including Point
‘A’ to ‘E’, which pertains to the “New Excise Policy”;
(c) direct the Respondents to issue licences for Retail Sale of Liquor to
Private Retail Vendors including the Petitioner in accordance with its
Notification I Order No. (9)/Policy/Extn. /Excise/2020- 21/1938 dated
01.08.2022 (Old Liquor Policy);
(d) pass such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
3. At the outset, it is noticed that the factual matrix is identical in all
these petitions and the petitioners (in each of these petitions) raise similar
grounds of challenge against common respondents. In the above
circumstances, it is considered apposite to dispose of the petitions by way of
a common order.
4. The Government of NCT of Delhi sought to effect a transition from
the old Excise Policy to the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-2022 (hereinafter ‘the
new Excise Policy’) w.e.f. 17.11.2021. For this purpose, vide a notification
dated 10.09.2021 it was notified/ordered that out of the licenses which were
renewed/extended till 30.09.2021 by the respondents, only certain licensees
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
i.e., all Government liquor vends holding licenses in form of L-62, L6FG3,
L6FE4 and L-l45 and wholesale licensees holding L-16,L1F7, L-28 licenses
shall be allowed to continue operations till 16.11.2021 (i.e., one day prior to
the scheduled date of implementing new licence regime).The same
notification provided that all Government Liquor vends in form of L-89
license; M&TP licenses10 (L-4, L-5, L-25, L-26, L-34, L-35, P-2 TO P-6,
DD-9 to DD-11); Authorization permits; Canteen Stores Department (CSD)
licenses (L-23/L-23F)11 and personal individual licenses (L-3012) shall be
allowed to be in operation till 31.03.2022, subject to terms and conditions
specified in the said notification. The aforesaid notification reads as under :-
2
Retail vend of Indian Liquor in public sector
3
Retail vend of Foreign Liquor in public sector to the holder of license in form L- 6 .
4
Retail vend of Foreign Liquor in public sector
5
Retail vend of economy Indian Liquor and Beer to holder of license in form L-8
6
Wholesale vend of Indian liquor
7
Wholesale vend of Foreign Liquor
8
Wholesale vend of Draught Beer
9
Retail vend of Country Liquor in public sector
10
Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Licenses
11
Retail vend of Indian and Foreign Liquor in military canteen
12
License for possession of liquor at home in excess of individual possession limit.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
5. However, owing to the alleged irregularities in the framework and
implementation of the new Excise Policy, the said Policy was recalled by the
respondents and as a consequence thereof, vide notification dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
01.08.2022, the respondents inter alia reverted to the previous regime of
excise duty-based policy w.e.f. 01.09.2022 (as was prevalent before
17.11.2021). The relevant portion of the said notification reads as under:
“(i) To revert to the previous regime of excise duty-based policy (as was
prevalent before 17.11.2021) with effect from 01” September, 2022.
(ii) To extend retail (L 7Z 1 L7V) licenses and wholesale (L 1) licences
for a period of one month i.e., till 31st August, 2022, subject to payment
of licence fee as applicable, and ensuring compliance of terms and
conditions of such licences.
(iii) to convey that the existing retail (L7Z/ L7V) licences and wholesale
(L 1) licenses will expire on 31.08.2022 with efflux of time.”
6. The petitioners made various representations to the respondents
asserting that since, the respondents have decided to revert back to the old
Excise Policy, in terms thereof, the petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria
for grant of a license. However, the respondent failed to respond to the
aforesaid representation/s.
7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner in one of the present petitions [bearing
no. WP(C) 15673/2024] filed a writ petition bearing no. WP(C) 10927/2024
before this Court. Vide order dated 07.08.2024, this Court in WP(C)
10927/2024 directed the respondents to expeditiously respond to the
representation of the petitioner, clearly specifying whether the petitioner is
eligible for grant of a license as per the notification dated 01.08.2022. The
relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“3. Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, counsel representing the Respondents, states
on instructions that they have received the Petitioner’s communication
dated 1st August, 2024, and shall respond to the same within a period of
six weeks from today, clearly specifying whether the Petitioner is eligible
for grant of a license under the “Old Liquor Policy”.
4. In light of the above stand, in the opinion of the Court, no further
directions are necessary at this stage. All rights and contentions of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
parties are left open. In case the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision
of the Respondents, Petitioner shall be free to avail of any remedy, as
may be available to them, in accordance with law.”
8. In compliance with the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the
respondents vide communication/letter dated 03.09.2024 responded to the
queries raised by the petitioners. The respondents denied allegations of
arbitrariness in issuance of the licenses and observed that the notification
dated 01.08.2022 [which spoke of reversion to the previous regime of excise
duty-based policy (as was prevalent before 17.11.2021)”] clearly
contemplated that only licenses which were in effect till 16.11.2021 are
liable to be renewed, and that a bare reading of order dated 10.09.2021
clarifies that L-713 and L-10 licenses were not operational at the said cutoff
date. Furthermore, the respondents have also stated on record that as on the
date of the aforesaid reply, in the State of NCT of Delhi, no private liquor
vend is operational and the liquor vends are operational only through four
government corporations. The said response to the representations made by
petitioners reads as under:-
13
Retail vend of Indian Liquor in private sector
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
9. In the above circumstances, the petitioners being aggrieved by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
response of the respondents as contained in the aforesaid communication/
letter, have approached this Court for direction/s qua the issuance of liquor
licenses to the petitioners/private retail vendors under the Delhi Excise
Policy notified vide notification dated 01.08.2022.
10. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in the past
two-decades, neither has a policy ever discriminated/disallowed private
retail vendor to obtain a licence for selling liquor nor empowered the
government to either monopolize the liquor trade or prohibit a private
vendor from running a liquor shop. Moreover, the rights of petitioners for
doing business in liquor trade as a private retail vendor stands protected by a
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Narula Etc. vs
State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors, 1967 SCC Online 125 wherein it
has been held that “dealing in liquor is a business and citizen has a right to
pursue business in the said commodity”.
11. Further, it is submitted that pursuant to the issuance of notification
dated 01.08.2022, respondents began to discriminate against private retail
vendors by issuing licenses exclusively to the Government vendors. It is
alleged that unilateral enforcement of the old Excise Policy to the extent it
serves the purpose of respondents is not only violative of petitioners right
under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India but is also in
contravention of the notification dated 01.08.2022 whereby respondents
have categorically decided to revert to the policy which was existing before
the implementation of the new Excise Policy.
12. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners further submits that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
since the notification dated 10.09.2021 was neither notified as an ‘Excise
Policy’ nor any Public Notice was issued pertaining to the same by the
respondents, the said notification cannot be given the status and meaning of
an ‘Excise Policy’, and at the most can be construed as an
Executive/Administrative Order which was issued at that time for
enforcement of the new Excise Policy.
13. Learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents has refuted the above
submissions, and has bifurcated the different phases/periods of the Excise
policies as under:-
a. Between 01.04.2021 till 30.09.2021, respondents implemented
the old Excise Policy, wherein all licenses, including that of
petitioners were applicable. It is stated that the petitioners
herein, under the said policy were granted extensions upto
30.09.2021 vide orders dated 16.03.2021 and circular dated
10.06.2021.
b. In the period between 01.10.2021 till 16.11.2021, i.e., pursuant
to the expiry of old Excise Policy and before implementation of
the new Excise Policy, vide notification dated 10.09.2021,
licenses of only government vends were allowed to operate
(hereinafter ‘extant policy’).
c. Between 17.11.2021 till 31.08.2022, licenses came to be issued
as per the new Excise Policy by the respondents.
It is submitted that pursuant to the recall of the new Excise Policy, the
respondents vide notification dated 01.08.2022 adopted the extant policy.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
14. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision to revert back to
extant policy is a conscious decision taken by the Cabinet vide Cabinet
Decision No. 3091 dated 31.07.2022 and has also been approved by the
Finance Department of Government of NCT of Delhi along with
concurrence from the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi. Thus, it is the
case of the respondents that a decision to allow only government agencies to
operate retail vends is a policy decision and falls squarely within the
purview of the Government.
15. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective counsel, I
find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
16. At the outset, the contention on behalf of the petitioners that their
rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India are violated due to
non-issuance of liquor license is misconstrued as it is no longer res integra
that a trade or business of liquor is ‘res extra commercium’. A Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd and Ors. vs State of
Karnataka and Ors, (1995) 1 SCC 574 has held that a citizen has no
fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as it squarely falls within the
purview of ‘res extra commercium’. The relevant portion of the judgment
reads as under: –
60. We may now summarise the law on the subject as culled from the
aforesaid decisions.
(a) The rights protected by Article 19(1) are not absolute but
qualified. The qualifications are stated in clauses (2) to (6) of Article
19. The fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) to (g) are,
therefore, to be read along with the said qualifications. Even the
rights guaranteed under the Constitutions of the other civilized
countries are not absolute but are read subject to the impliedSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
limitations on them. Those implied limitations are made explicit by
clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of our Constitution.
(b) The right to practise any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business does not extend to practising a
profession or carrying on an occupation, trade or business which is
inherently vicious and pernicious, and is condemned by all civilised
societies. It does not entitle citizens to carry on trade or business in
activities which are immoral and criminal and in articles or goods
which are obnoxious and injurious to health, safety and welfare of
the general public, i.e., res extra commercium, (outside commerce).
There cannot be business in crime.
(c) Potable liquor as a beverage is an intoxicating and depressant
drink which is dangerous and injurious to health and is, therefore,
an article which is res extra commercium being inherently harmful.
A citizen has, therefore, no fundamental right to do trade or business
in liquor. Hence the trade or business in liquor can be completely
prohibited.
(d) Article 47 of the Constitution considers intoxicating drinks and
drugs as injurious to health and impeding the raising of level of
nutrition and the standard of living of the people and improvement of
the public health. It, therefore, ordains the State to bring about
prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks which
obviously include liquor, except for medicinal purposes. Article 47 is
one of the directive principles which is fundamental in the
governance of the country. The State has, therefore, the power to
completely prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, distribution
and consumption of potable liquor as a beverage, both because it is
inherently a dangerous article of consumption and also because of
the directive principle contained in Article 47, except when it is used
and consumed for medicinal purposes.
(e) For the same reason, the State can create a monopoly either in
itself or in the agency created by it for the manufacture, possession,
sale and distribution of the liquor as a beverage and also sell the
licences to the citizens for the said purpose by charging fees. This
can be done under Article 19(6) or even otherwise.
(f) For the same reason, again, the State can impose limitations and
restrictions on the trade or business in potable liquor as a beverage
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
which restrictions are in nature different from those imposed on the
trade or business in legitimate activities and goods and articles
which are res commercium. The restrictions and limitations on the
trade or business in potable liquor can again be both under Article
19(6) or otherwise. The restrictions and limitations can extend to the
State carrying on the trade or business itself to the exclusion of and
elimination of others and/or to preserving to itself the right to sell
licences to do trade or business in the same, to others.
(g) When the State permits trade or business in the potable liquor
with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade
or business subject to the limitations, if any, and the State cannot
make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry
on the trade or business.
(h) The State can adopt any mode of selling the licences for trade or
business with a view to maximise its revenue so long as the method
adopted is not discriminatory.
(i) The State can carry on trade or business in potable liquor
notwithstanding that it is an intoxicating drink and Article 47 enjoins
it to prohibit its consumption. When the State carries on such
business, it does so to restrict and regulate production, supply and
consumption of liquor which is also an aspect of reasonable
restriction in the interest of general public. The State cannot on that
account be said to be carrying on an illegitimate business.
(j) The mere fact that the State levies taxes or fees on the production,
sale and income derived from potable liquor whether the production,
sale or income is legitimate or illegitimate, does not make the State a
party to the said activities. The power of the State to raise revenue
by levying taxes and fees should not be confused with the power of
the State to prohibit or regulate the trade or business in question.
The State exercises its two different powers on such occasions.
Hence the mere fact that the State levies taxes and fees on trade or
business in liquor or income derived from it, does not make the right
to carry on trade or business in liquor a fundamental right, or even a
legal right when such trade or business is completely prohibited.
(k) The State cannot prohibit trade or business in medicinal and
toilet preparations containing liquor or alcohol. The State can,
however, under Article 19(6) place reasonable restrictions on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
right to trade or business in the same in the interests of general
public.
(l) Likewise, the State cannot prohibit trade or business in industrial
alcohol which is not used as a beverage but used legitimately for
industrial purposes. The State, however, can place reasonable
restrictions on the said trade or business in the interests of the
general public under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
(m) The restrictions placed on the trade or business in industrial
alcohol or in medicinal and toilet preparations containing liquor or
alcohol may also be for the purposes of preventing their abuse or
diversion for use as or in beverage.
17. Khoday Distilleries (supra) also deals with the previous
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Narula
(supra), which has been relied upon by the petitioner. The relevant
observations in Khoday Distilleries (supra) reads as under:-
61. This Court neither in K.K. Narula case [(1967) 3 SCR 50 : AIR 1967
SC 1368] nor in the second Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. case [(1990) 1
SCC 109] has held that the State cannot prohibit trade or business in
potable liquor. The observations made in K.K. Narula case [(1967) 3
SCR 50 : AIR 1967 SC 1368] that a citizen has a fundamental right to
trade or business in liquor are to be understood, as explained above, to
mean only that when the State does not prohibit the trade or business in
liquor, a citizen has the right to do business in it subject to the
restrictions and limitations placed upon it. Those observations cannot be
read to mean that a citizen has an unqualified and an absolute right to
trade or business in potable liquor. This position in law is explained by
this Court also in Har Shankar case [(1975) 1 SCC 737 : (1975) 3 SCR
254] . The decision in the second Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
case [(1990) 1 SCC 109] also cannot be read to mean that the Court in
that case has taken the view that a citizen has a right to trade or business
in potable liquor. That decision is confined to trade or business in
industrial alcohol which is legitimately used for industrial purpose and
not for consumption as an intoxicating drink. The Court has also there
not taken any exception to the right of the State to place reasonable
restrictions on the trade or business even of industrial alcohol to prevent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
its diversion for the use in or as intoxicating beverage.
62. We, therefore, hold that a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or
business in liquor as beverage. The State can prohibit completely the
trade or business in potable liquor since liquor as beverage is res extra
commercium. The State may also create a monopoly in itself for trade or
business in such liquor. The State can further place restrictions and
limitations on such trade or business which may be in nature different
from those on trade or business in articles res commercium. The view
taken by this Court in K.K. Narula case [(1967) 3 SCR 50 : AIR 1967 SC
1368] as well as in the second Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
case [(1990) 1 SCC 109] is not contrary to the aforesaid view which has
been consistently taken by this Court so far.
63. One of the incidental contentions, viz., whether the State can create
monopoly in trade or business in potable liquor is already answered
above. This is apart from the fact that Article 19(6) provides for such
monopoly in favour of the State even in trades and businesses which are
legitimate. It is not, therefore, necessary to dilate upon this aspect any
further.
64. The last contention in these groups of matters is whether the State
can place restrictions and limitations under Article 19(6) by subordinate
legislation. Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution states that law includes
“any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or
usage having in the territory of India the force of law”. Clauses (2) to (6)
of Article 19 make no distinction between the law made by the legislature
and the subordinate legislation for the purpose of placing the restrictions
on the exercise of the respective fundamental rights mentioned in Article
19(1)(a) to (g). We are concerned in the present case with clause (6) of
Article 19. It will be apparent from the said clause that it only speaks of
“operation of any existing law insofar as it imposes …” “from making
any law imposing” reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights
conferred by Article 19(1)(g). There is nothing in this provision which
makes it imperative to impose the restrictions in question only by a law
enacted by the legislature. Hence the restrictions in question can also be
imposed by any subordinate legislation so long as such legislation is not
violative of any provisions of the Constitution. This is apart from the fact
that the trade or business in potable liquor is a trade or business in res
extra commercium and hence can be regulated and restricted even by
executive order provided it is issued by the Governor of the State. We,
therefore, answer the question accordingly.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
18. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Uga Sugar Works Ltd vs Delhi
Administration and Ors, (2001) 3 SCC 635; State of Bihar vs Nirmal
Kumar Gupta, (2013) 2 SCC 565; State of T.N vs K. Vinayagamurthy,
(2002) 7 SCC 104; State of Punjab vs Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.
(2004) 11 SCC 26; State of Kerala vs Kandath Distilleries, (2013) 6 SCC
573; State of Tamil Nadu vs K. Balu and Anr., (2017) 2 SCC 281 etc., has
consistently taken a view consistent with the principles laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Khoday Distilleries Ltd and Ors. vs State of
Karnataka and Ors (supra).
19. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order
dated 10.09.2021 does not evince any policy that was existing prior to the
implementation of the new Excise Policy with effect from 17.11.2021,
cannot be accepted. It is clearly discernible from the order dated 10.09.2021
that the same contemplates grant/continuation of licenses only to
Government corporations. It is clearly discernable that the same does not
envisage grant of retail licenses to any private player. This is the policy that
the respondents have adopted in supersession of the policy that was
introduced with effect from 17.11.2021. There is no mandatory legal
imperative that the extant policy of the Government must enable/provide for
licenses to be issued in favour of private parties.
20. The Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd and Ors. vs State of
Karnataka and Ors (supra) has clearly taken a view that the power of State
to regulate and to restrict business in potable liquor impliedly includes
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
power to carry on such trade to the exclusion of others. Relevant portion of
the said judgment reads as under:-
“55. The contention that if a citizen has no fundamental right to carry on
trade or business in potable liquor, the State is also injuncted from
carrying on such trade, particularly in view of the provisions of Article
47, though apparently attractive, is fallacious. The State’s power to
regulate and to restrict the business in potable liquor impliedly includes
the power to carry on such trade to the exclusion of others. Prohibition is
not the only way to restrict and regulate the consumption of intoxicating
liquor. The abuse of drinking intoxicants can be prevented also by
limiting and controlling its production, supply and consumption. The
State can do so also by creating in itself the monopoly of the production
and supply of the liquor. When the State does so, it does not carry on
business in illegal products. It carries on business in products which are
not declared illegal by completely prohibiting their production but in
products the manufacture, possession and supply of which is regulated in
the interests of the health, morals and welfare of the people. It does so
also in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6) of the
Constitution.
56. The contention further that till prohibition is introduced, a citizen has
a fundamental right to carry on trade or business in potable liquor has
also no merit. All that the citizen can claim in such a situation is an equal
right to carry on trade or business in potable liquor as against the other
citizens. He cannot claim equal right to carry on the business against the
State when the State reserves to itself the exclusive right to carry on such
trade or business. When the State neither prohibits nor monopolises the
said business, the citizens cannot be discriminated against while granting
licences to carry on such business. But the said equal right cannot be
elevated to the status of a fundamental right.
57. It is no answer against complete or partial prohibition of the
production, possession, sale and consumption etc. of potable liquor to
contend that the prohibition where it was introduced earlier and where it
is in operation at present, has failed. The failure of measures permitted
by law does not detract from the power of the State to introduce such
measures and implement them as best as they can.”
21. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in Rattan Singh vs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr., WP (C) 10309/2021 while
considering an interim application for stay, dealt with similar issue wherein
a private retail vendor challenged the notification dated 10.09.2021 on the
premise that non-renewal of licenses of the private vends after 30.09.2021
and extension of Government vends till 16.11.2021 violates Article 14 of the
Constitution. Although, the aforesaid petition was subsequently dismissed
as withdrawn, this Court while dismissing the application for interim stay as
prayed by the petitioner held as under:
“7. We also do not find any merit in the contention that there is violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is categorically averred in the
affidavit filed by the Respondents that the decision of not continuing the
existing retail licenses in private sector is a considered decision, in the
light of approval of the new Excise Policy. It is also brought out that no
renewal / extension has been granted with respect to any of the licenses
for private vends and only the L-6 license, which is with respect to the
Government vends have been renewed and that too upto 16.11.2021. Since
none of the licenses with respect to the private vends have been renewed
beyond 30.09.2021, there is no discrimination between similarly placed
private vendors and certainly, the Petitioner cannot claim parity with the
Government vends.”
22. The Division Bench of this Court in Rattan Singh (supra) clearly took
note of the fact that the decision, as incorporated in the notification dated
10.09.2021, of not continuing / renewing the retail licenses to the private
sector, was a considered decision. Further, the same was not arbitrary
inasmuch as the respondents were consistent in not granting licenses to
private vends at all.
23. It is well-settled that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot impinge upon the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 21 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
executive decision making power of the Government or to sit in judgment
over any policy, unless the same is manifestly arbitrary, unconstitutional and
violative of the fundamental rights14. As noticed, this is not the position
here.
24. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue any writ in the
nature of Mandamus or any direction/s to the respondents to issue licenses
for retail/sale of liquor to private retail vendors.
25. However, the petitioners are not precluded from, and are at liberty to
make appropriate representation to the Government which shall be duly
considered in accordance with law.
26. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid
liberty. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
MARCH 28, 2025/sl
14
In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1995, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2880; Ashwini Kumar vs Union of
India and Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 585; State of Himachal Pradesh vs Satpal Saini, (2017) 11 SCC 42.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT W.P.(C) 721/2025 & Connected Matters Page 22 of 22
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:29.03.2025
20:01:59
[ad_1]
Source link