CHINGLEPUT BOTTLERS versus MAJESTIC BOTTLING COMPANY

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 190 · Decided: 15-03-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
190 
A 
CHINGLEPUT BOTTLERS 
v. 
MAJESTIC BOTTLING COMPANY 
B 
March 15, 1984 
[A,P. SEN ANn•A. VARADARMAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of lndia-4rt. 226-High Court's Jurisdiction .to issue writ of 
·c 
mandamus in cases where duty sought tq be enforced is-of discretz'onary nature. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.H 
Natufal Justice-Applicaiion of rules of natural justice to case$ which relate 
not to rights but to mere privile'Ces of licences. 
Tamil Nada Arrai:k (Manuff(lcture) Rules, 1981-R. 7-Commissioner has no 
legal duty tO grant /icence-ApprovQl of State_ Government is a pre-requisite for 
grant of licence-High Court cannot com]lf!l gr~n/ of licence by Commissioner by 
issuing writ of mandamus. 
. . 
On the surrender oft.he licence for the manufacture and supply of bottled 
arrack for the Chingleput District for the financial year 1982·83 by the then 
existing licensee, the C.Ommissioner of ProJ:iibition and Excise called for fresh· 
appliJ;atiOns from intending persons for the grant of licence 'under the Tamil 
Nadu Arrack (Manufacture) Rules, 1981 framed under the Tamil Nadu Pro-
hibition Act, 1937. Two firms, namely, Majestic. Bottling Company and 
Chingleput·Bottlers, filed there applications and an enquiry with regard to them 
was held by the .. Assistant Commissioner. The Comniissioner considered the 
report of enquiry, gave a separate oral hearing to the two applicants and passed 
an order rejecting both the applications. As regard_s Majestic Bottling Company 
the Commissioner held that they did not satisfy the requirements of rr. 5(a) and 
S(e). In the case of Chingleput Bottlers,. he held that they did not satisfy the 
. requirements of rr. S(a), S(c) and S(e). While recording the finding in respcc( 
of CbingJCpU.t Bottlers, the CommissiOner. rCiied on a: report of the Collector and 
other material gathered by him during the. course of the enquiry, which included · 
a ·representation. froq-i Majestic Bottling ComPany against the application of 
Chingleput Bottlers. Both the applicants filed petitipns under Article 226 of the 
Constitut~on questioning the orders passed. by the Commissioner. 
. 
A Single judge Of the High O?urt .issued a writ of certiorari quashing the 
order· of the Commissioner insofar as he rejected the application of Majestic 
Botfling Company an4 also issued ;{w.rit of miindamµs ordaining the' Commis~ 
sioner tO grant the licen~ to Majestic Bottling Company. As regards ChingJeput 
Bottiers, the Single Judge rejec~ed their· Contention that tpe Commissioner had 
acted in breach of rules of natural justice by ·his failure -to furnish them the 
report .of the Collector and Observed that nothing pre~luded them from seeking 
ven1s~l of. the records or from ~~king a demand for a copy of th~ sam~. 
·~t
• 
y 
• 
• 
• 
' 
• 
-< 
' 
r 
. ' 
CHINGLEPUT BOTTLERS v. MAJESTIC BOTTLiNG 
191 
~oth the' applicants preferred appeals to t11e D_ivision Bench. The State 
Government which Was in pOssession of material adverse to the two partners· of · 
' Majestic Bott.ling Compriny did iiot initially file a ~eparate counter affidavit but 
only di~ so at the conciusion of the hearing. The Division Bench ruled that the 
order passed by the Commissioner must be adjud'ged by the reasons stated by 
him and those reasons cannot be supp1emented by fresh reasons provided by the 
State Government in its belated affidavit and upheld the judgment of the Single 
Judge. 
The State Government and piingleput. Traders filed appeals against the 
jridgm~nt of the Division Bench. 
It was contended on behalf· of the. State Government that the grant of 
licence under r: 7 was.subject to the prior approval of the State Government, 
that if the High Court- was satisfied that the impugned order of the Commis· 
sioner. was liable to be quashed on the grouncf: that there was an error apparent 
on the face of the record, the proper course for it to adopt was to issue a writ 
of mandamus to the Commissioner t"ff re-determine the question of gra11t Or such 
priviICge and . that. the High Court had nO power to fssue a writ of mandamus 
directing the Commissioner .to grant the Jicence in favour of lvlajestic Bottling · 
Company: 
It was cpntended on behalf of Ching1eput Bottlers that the ·Commissioner 
had acted in breach of rules of na:turaI jusliee in not furnishing them a copy of 
the report submitted by the Collector and _other material gathered by hi~ during 
the course of the enquiry. 
Allowing the appeal of th'e State Government and disniissing the ap

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