ASHOK LENKA versus RISHI DIKSHIT AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 142 · Decided: 21-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ASHOK LENKA 
V. 
RISH! DIKSHIT AND ORS. 
APRIL 21, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.) 
Chattisgarh Excise Act, 1915--Chattisgarh Excise Seu/ement of licences 
for Retail Sale of Country/Foreign Liquor Rules, 2002. 
Rules 9 and 11--District level Selection Commillees undertaking process 
of selection of persons to be granted licences--{:;hallenge to grant-Writ petition 
making some licensees parties, while leaving out many others-High Court 
cancelling entire set of licences-On appeal, held-Jn writ petition private 
respondents were not impleaded in representative capacity; no leave in terms 
D of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was obtained, and no public 
notice was given regarding pendency of petition---ln that view. cancellation of 
licences of all private respondents was wrong-Inadequacies of fulfillment of 
eligibility criteria should have been decided by taking up individual matters-
lt was more so as selection process was undertaken not by one but several 
District level Committees, and it was not a case of gross irregularity which 
E could lead to cancellation of enitre process-All licensees whose licences had 
been cancelled and against whom allegations were made were necessary parties 
to writ petition and in their absence it could not be decided. 
Interpretation of-As there was no provision for relaxing any condition 
F for grant of licence, provisions thereof are to be construed strictly. 
Shortcomings of--Act and the Rules found to deal with only control and 
regulations-No discretion given to authorities for relaxation of provisions of 
Rules-In that behalf, Rules directed to be framed again-Also, processing of 
applications for grant of licences found to be unsatisfactory and improvements 
G suggested for future. 
Constitution of lndia, 1950-Article 47--Grant of licence for selling of 
liquor-Rules and policy decisions-Held: Their formulation must be guided 
by public interest, strictly conform to public good, and not be otherwise 
derogative of public health-Not only eligibility criteria sh.iuld be laid down, 
H 
I~ 
ASH OK LENKA v. RISH! DIKSHIT 
143 
but having regard to past experience as to -how and in what manner licensees A 
find means and methods to circumvent the provisions, all endeavours should 
be made to plug all loopholes-All information supplied by applicants for 
licences must undergo and satisfY 'strict scrutiny test '-State should not treat 
its right of parting with its privilege only a means of earning mare and more 
revenue. 
Licences-Grant of-Satisfaction of eligibility criteria-Burden of proof-
Held-initially it is on applicants-Wherever objections are raised to grant of 
licence, satisfaction was required to be arrived at by competent authority 
upon their consideration, but that does not mean that burden was upon objector 
to prove same. 
Pleadings-Rejoinder and sur-rejoinder-No new plea is ordinarily 
permitted in a rejoinder without the leave of Court-However, if new facts are 
brought on record for first time in it, opposite party is entitled to file a sur-
rejoinder controverting them. 
Interpretation of s·tarutes-Subordinate legislation or· notification-
Retrospective effect-Ordinarily, it cannot be given-However, if it is 
clarificatory, such effect can be given. 
B 
c 
D 
Interpretation of statutes-Relaxation of statutory provisions-It can be 
granted provided there exists a specific provision therefor-It cannot be.granted E 
by exclusion, when th(!re does not exist any provision. 
Words and° phrases~Public health-In context of Article 47 of 
Constitution of India, I950. · 
Appellants were granted excise Iice·nces by co-appellant, the State. F 
Grant of the licences was governed by the Chattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, 
whereunder, by a notification dated 15-3-2002, the State Government had 
mad Chattisgarh Excise Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Counrty/ 
Foreign Liquor Rules, 2002. However, n_otification dated ?-7-2005, with 
retrospective effect, omitted from Rule 9(3)(d) requirement of certificate 
regarding criminal antecedents of family members of selected licensee. G 
Respondents opposed grant of licences to appellants by filing objections 
before District Level Selection Committees. On rejection of their 
objections, they filed writ petition before High Court, making sixty five 
licensees parties, while leaving out one hundred and twenty six others. In 
pleadings, in response to rejoinder of respondents, State filed an a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.