LexASHOK LANKA AND ANR. versus RISHI DIXIT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ASHOK LANKA AND ANR. A v. RISHI DIXIT AND ORS. MAY I 1, 2005 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE ANDS. B. SINHA, JJ.] B Chhatisgarh Excise Act, 1915; Ss. 7(e), 62 and 63/Chhatisgarh Excise Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of CountJy/f oreign Liquor Rules, 2002; Rules4, 8, 9, JO, JI, 13and23/Constitutionoflndia, 1950; Entries8and51 C of List-fl of the Seventh Schedule. Allotment of Country/Foreign liquor shops-Applications for grant of licence-Licence granted without proper scrutiny of the applications- Procedural requirements in terms of Rule 9-Mandatory or directory-Held: 1915 Act is regulatory in nature-Before a licence is granted, applicant must D satisfy the eligibility requirements-An affidavit is required to be filed disclosing all the requisite information to enable the authorities to verify the same- A uthorities could even cancel the licence on ground of non filing of affidavit- Thus, requirement of.filing of such affidavit is mandatory-Authorities are not empowered to dispense with the statutory requirement of filing of an affidavit- Some of the candidates did not fulfil the statutory requirements, even then E licences were granted to them-Hence, the entire exercise of scrutiny as regards ascertainment of eligibility vis-a-vis selection processes required to be undertaken by the selection committee afresh-However, candidates already selected could carry on the trade in liquor in terms of the directions-Directions issued Jurisdiction/Power of High Court to deal Public Interest Litigation- Discussed Administrative Law-Subordinate Legislation: F Amendment in the Rules by the States in exercise of its rules making G power-Held: State is not empowered to amend the Rules in order to justify the illegal order on the part of the authorities. The State Government of Chhatisgarh had invited applications for 299 H 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. A grant of li~ences for Country/Foreign liquor shops under the provisions of Chhatisgarh Excise Act and Rules made thereunder. A large number of applications were received and selection process began. In the meantime, some of the candidates challenged the selection process on the ground that the selection process was vitiated as affidavit was not filed by the applicants B which was a mandatory requirement under the Rules; and that the selection was made by drawing a lot through the computer and not manually. The High Court held that the State was entitled to make use of computer in the selection process; and that since the selection committee did not make any scrutiny as regards eligibility conditions/requirement of filing of affidavit in terms of the Rules, a fresh selection be made in C terms of the extant rules. Hence the present appeals. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It may not be necessary for this Court to consider as to whether the public interest litigation should have been entertained by the High Court or not. The High Court did entertain the public interest D litigation without any objection and ultimately allowed the same. Furthermore it is well settled that even in a case where a petitioner might have moved the court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in E the interest of justice. [321-D-F) Guruyayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. v. C. K. Rajan and Ors., 12003) 7 SCC 546 and Prahlad Singh v. Col. Sukhdev Singh, 11987) 1 sec 727' relied on. F 1.2. When public interest litigation is entertained the individual conduct of the writ petitioners would take a backseat. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in a given case a party may waive his legal right. In an appropriate case, the doctrine of acquiescence or acceptance sub silentio may also be invoked but the High Court, in the instant case, has gone into the question with a wider perspective. This Court is not only G required to construe the provisions of the statute but also to take into consideration the subsequent events which took place vis-a-vis the action on the part of the State after passing of the interim order. The issue as regards application of acquiescence or waiver, therefore, has become irrelevant. [321-G-H; 322-A] H Haryana State Coop. Land Dev. Bank v. Nee/am, (2005) (2) SCALE f ASHOK LANKA v. RISH! DIXIT 301 434, relied on. A 2.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.