http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: CHHOTU SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/09/1987

BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2200            1988 SCR  (1) 303  1987 SCC  (4) 533        JT 1987 (3)   661  1987 SCALE  (2)653

ACT:      Permission granted  by State  Government  for  shifting country liquor  shop from  the  village  to  another-Whether arbitrary or in breach of guidelines contained in Government Circulars on  the subject-High  Court quashed the Government order granting permission.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  Chhotu Singh,  who had been granted C.L. III licence  for vending  country liquor  in Village  Sawli, applied for permission to shift his liquor shop from Village Sawli to  Village Narsi  Chaurasta as  there was very little demand for  country liquor in Sawli with a small population. The Collector  recommended the  transfer of  the shop of the appellant after  making due  enquiries contemplated  in  the guidelines laid  down in the government circular dated April 27, 1984  for shifting  shops. The  State Government granted the permission applied for by the appellant.      Upon  the  appellant’s  shop  being  shifted  to  Narsi Chaurasta, the  respondent No. S in the appeals, who already had a  liquor shop  in Narsi Chaurasta, challenged by a Writ Petition the  permission granted  by the  Government to  the appellant to  shift his  liquor shop to Narsi Chaurasta. The High Court  allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the order of the Government  granting permission  for shifting the liquor shop, on  the ground  that  the  said  permission  had  been granted without  the criteria  laid down  in the  Government circular dated March 18,1982 being duly considered. A review petition against  the order  of the High Court, allowing the Writ Petition, was dismissed.      The appellant  Chhotu Singh  has  moved  the  Court  by special leave against the orders of the High Court, allowing the Writ Petition and dismissing the review application, and the only question for consideration in the matter is whether the permission  granted by the State Government for shifting the appellant’s  C.L. III  liquor shop from Village Sawli to Village Narsi  Chaurasta is supported by the guidelines laid down in  the latest government circular dated April 27,1984, which has superseded all the previous such circulars.      Allowing the appeals, the Court, 304

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

^      HELD: The  Collector  had  recommended  permission  for shifting the liquor shop of the appellant from Village Sawli to Village  Narsi Chaurasta after making due enquiries, with regard to  the shifting of the said shop, in accordance with the guidelines  contained in  the latest government circular on the  subject, dated  April 27, 1984, which had superseded the guidelines  in the previous such circulars. The sanction accorded to  the shifting  of the appellant’s shop is not in breach of  the said latest circular dated April 27, 1984 and it cannot be assailed as arbitrary. [306G, B; 307E, B-C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2331 32 of 1987.      From the  Judgment and  order  dated,  .4.1986  of  the Bombay High Court in Review Petition No. 837 of 1986.      Dr. Y.S. Chitale and Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant.      T.S.  Krishnamoorthy   Iyer,   D.M.   Nargolkar,   A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      B.C. RAY, J. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.      The subject  matter of  challenge in this appeal is the order dated 7th April, 1986 made by the High Court of Bombay allowing the  writ petition  No. 189  of 1986  quashing  the permission granted  in  favour  of  the  petitioner  by  the Government by  its order  dated  24.12.1985  permitting  the shifting of  the country  liquor shop  from Mouza  Sawli  to Mouza Narsi Chaurasta as well as the order of the High Court dated 17.7.1986  rejecting the  review petition  No. 837  of 1986. The  petitioner’s father  had a  licence  to  run  the country liquor  shop in  village  Narsi  in  Taluka  Biloli, District Nanded,  Maharashtra. In  1983 the said licence was transferred in  the name of the petitioner (respondent No. 5 in this  appeal).  The  appellant  was  granted  a  licence, commonly known  as C.L.  III  licence  for  vending  country liquor in village, Sawli, Taluka Biloli, District Nanded. In November, 1984,  the appellant  was permitted  to  join  one Ataullah as  his partner to run the said country liquor shop in  village   Sawli.  The   appellant   found   considerable difficulty in running the shop in village Sawli as there was very little  demand for  country liquor  in the said village having small  population of  about  1800  and  as  such  the appellant sustained heavy loss. The appellant therefore 305 applied on  2.2.1985 before  the District  Collector, Nanded for permission  to shift  his shop  from  village  Sawli  to village Narsi Chaurasta situated within the same Taluka. The Collector of  Nanded after  making  necessary  enquiries  in accordance  with   the  guidelines  of  the  circular  dated 27.4.1984 regarding  the shifting  of the shops, recommended the transfer of the shop of the appellant from village Sawli to village  Narsi Chaurasta.  The Government of Maharashtra, however, by  order dated  25.7.1985 rejected the application of the  appellant for shifting the shop. The appellant again made a  representation against  the said order of rejection. This representation  was duly  considered by  the Government and permission  was granted to the appellant to transfer his country liquor  shop C.L.  IIl from village Sawli to village Narsi Chaurasta.  In accordance  with  the  said  permission granted to  the appellant, the appellant shifted his shop on 17.2.1986 to  village Narsi  Chaurasta. The respondent No. 5 who  has   got  a  country  liquor  shop  in  that  village,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

questioned the  permission granted  by  the  Governmment  in favour of the appellant by writ petition No. 189 of 1986 and prayed for quashing of the said order granting permission on the ground  that there  has been a violation of the circular No. CLR.  1173(III) Gen/K  dated 27th  February, 1973  in as much as  the total  population of  the said  village did not exceed l00,000  and as  such the permission for shifting the said shop  of the  appellant to  the village Narsi Chaurasta was illegal and bad.      The writ  petition No.  189/86 was  heard by  the  High Court, Bombay  and it  was allowed  by holding  that without duly considering  the criteria  laid down  in  the  circular dated 18.3.1982 i.e. economic viability of the proposed shop and the  likely volume of consumption of country liquor, the purported permission  for shifting  the  shop  was  granted. Accordingly, the  rule  was  made  absolute  and  the  order granting  permission  by  the  Government  was  quashed.  An application for  review of  the said  order was filed by the appellant and  the same was rejected by order dated July 17, 1986 in  Review Petition  No. 837  of 1986. Aggrieved by the said two  orders the special leave petition was filed out of which this appeal has arisen.      The only  question that falls for consideration in this appeal is  whether the  permission granted  by the  State of Maharashtra i.e.  Respondent No.  1 for shifting of C.L. IIl liquor shop  of the  appellant from village Sawli to village Narsi Chaurasta  is in  accordance with  the guidelines laid down by  the latest circular dated 27th April, 1984 which is annexed as annexure P-7 to this appeal. It has been urged on behalf of  respondent No.  5 by  drawing the  notice of  the Court to the circular 306 dated 27.2.1973  (annexure P-2) that the permission that was accorded for  shifting of  the appellant’s  shop from  Mouza Sawli to  Mouza Narsi  is in  infringement of  the aforesaid circular in  as much  as the total population of Mouza Narsi did not  exceed l0,000  and as such no additional shop could be permitted  in the  said Mouza nor any permission could be accorded for  shifting of the appellant’s liquor shop in the said Mouza.  This argument  advanced on behalf of respondent No. 5  is devoid  of merit  in  as  much  as  the  aforesaid circular was  superseded by  the guidelines laid down by the Government  as   is  evident   from  the   order   No.   CLR 1480/1101/PRO-3 dated  2nd October, 1980 wherein it has been stated in  clauses 4  and S  that permission  for additional shop can be granted only if it would be economically viable. It is  also evident  from the  circular dated March 18, 1982 that rules  23 and  24 of  the  Maharashtra  Country  Liquor Rules, 1973  were amended  by Government  Notification dated 26th February,  1982 and  guidelines have been laid down for grant of  a licence for shops for the retail sale of country liquor. One  of the  guidelines to be considered is that due consideration has  to be  given  to  the  likely  volume  of consumption of  country liquor and economic viability of the proposed shop before granting any permission for a new shop. This  circular   was  followed  by  another  circular  dated September 16,  1983 wherein  it has  been mentioned  that in granting additional  licences for  country liquor  shop, the Collector should  use the  discretion and  propose shops  at such places  taking into  consideration the likely volume of consumption,   economic   viability,   menace   of   illicit distillation etc.  This circular  is annexed as annexure P-5 to the  appeal. By  the latest circular dated April 27, 1984 the Government  in supersession  of the  guidelines  in  the previous circulars had laid down certain guidelines of which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

clause 6  is relevant  for our consideration which is to the following effect:           "Whether additional shop at the new place would be           economically feasible."      In the  instant case  the District  Collector of Nanded made  due   enquiries  in  accordance  with  the  guidelines contained in  circular dated April 27, 1984 (annexure P-7 to this appeal)  with regard  to the shifting of country liquor shop of  the appellant  and recommended  the permission  for shifting the shop stating that the population of Mouza Narsi is about  3738 and  it is a commercial place. There is a lot of crowd  of people at this place and as such if the country liquor shop  is shifted  from Mouza Sawli to Mouza Narsi the financial condition  of  the  licence-holder  would  improve resulting in his being able to pay the licence fee and incur the other expenses of the shop. It has been 307 further stated  that the  sale of  country liquor  at  Mouza Narsi is  1300 litres  and starting  of another shop at this place  is   feasible.  This  report  was  forwarded  to  the Secretary, Home  Department, Government  of  Maharashtra,  a copy of  which  is  annexed  as  P-1  to  this  appeal.  The Government of Maharashtra had first rejected the application of the  appellant for  the shifting of the shop on 25.7.1985 and on  representation being  made by  the appellant had re- considered its earlier decision and accorded sanction to the proposal of shifting of country liquor shop of the appellant from  village  Sawli  to  village  Narsi  Chaurasta,  Taluka Biloli. This  order according  permission cannot be assailed as arbitraty  or in  breach of the latest circular issued by the Government  laying down  the  guidelines  in  1984.  The Government duly  considered the  guidelines laid down in the said circular  namely the  economic viability  and also  the volume of  consumption of  liquor in the particular Mouza as is evident  from the  report of the Collector, Nanded. It is also pertinent  to mention in this connection that the State of Maharashtra,  respondent No.  1 filed  a return  to  this appeal wherefrom  it is  manifest that  the respondent No. 1 duly considered  the report  of the  Collector  recommending permission to  transfer  the  country  liquor  shop  of  the appellant. It has also been stated in. the said counter that the guidelines  contained in the circular dated February 27, 1973 are  in respect  of the  grant of  new  country  liquor licence. These  guidelines  cannot  be  made  applicable  in respect of  the shifting of any country liquor shop existing already in  one village  to another  village. It has further been stated  that  after  the  permission  was  granted  the appellant shifted  his country  liquor shop to village Narsi Chaurasta and  he has  been running  the country liquor shop there since  February, 1986.  The sanction  accorded to  the shifting of  the shop  of the  appellant is not in breach of the latest  circular dated  April 27, 1984 annexed as P-7 to this appeal.      For the  reasons aforesaid  there is  no merit  in  the submissions made  on behalf of respondent No. S and the same cannot be  sustained. The appeals are therefore allowed. The impugned judgment  and order  passed by  the High  Court  of Bombay dated  April 7,  1986 in  Writ Petition No. 189/86 as well as  the order  dated  July  17,  1986  made  in  Review Petition No.  837/86 are  quashed and set aside. There will, however, be no orders as to costs. S.L.                                     Appeals allowed. 308

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5