DOONGAJI AND CO. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 09-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DOONGAJI AND CO. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 9, 1991 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 and Madhya Pradesh Distil-
leries, Breweries and Warehouses Rules-Order refusing to grant 
licence under sections 13 and 14 of the Act-Whether valid. 
The petitioner and its predecessors had licence for distillery at 
U.ijain to manufacture rectified spirit and the last of such licence held 
by the petitioner was for the period 1.4.1976 to 31.3.1981. For the 
licensing period commencing from l.4.1981to31.3.1986, the petitioner 
was unsuccessful and the licence was granted in favour of Rajdhani 
Distillery Corporation. The petitioner impugned the same but failed 
D 
both before the High Court as also before the Court. Thereafter, the 
petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming restitution of 
the distillery but failed and an appeal against the High Court's order 
was preferred before this Court, which has been disposed of whereby 
this Court has declined to grant restitution bot directed that the 
petitioner should move an application before the State Government to 
E 
have the value of the plants & machinery etc. fixed. The petitioner 
applied for grant of licence on February 19,1982 and reiterated his 
request by number of reminders including the one in November 3, 1986. 
In the interregnum, the Government policy was changed by a cabinet 
sub-committe policy decision dated 30.12.1984, whereby they decided 
F 
to grant licence to the e>:isting licensees of the distilleries and that they 
should construct the factories at their expenses on the land allotted by 
the State Government or acquired and allotted by the State Govern-
ment and that they shift the business to new factories and the licence 
would be for a period of five years. Several writ petitions including the 
one by the petitioner were filed in the High Court challenging the 
policy. The High Court quashed part of the policy decision. Against 
G 
that order, petitions were filed by the State and the unsuccessful 
petitioners including the petitioner in this Court. Those petitions were 
disposed of by this Court by its judgment in the case of State of M. P. v. 
Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors., [1987] l, SCR I. The court upheld the vali-
dity of the Government policy. During the course of the arguments, the 
Attorney General of India conceded that if the petitioner makes an 
H application for grant of licence, it would be considered by the Govern-
492 
DOONGAJI v. STATE OF M.P. 
493 
ment and disposed of quickly. Pursuant thereto the petitioner made an 
application on December ~5, 1987. The State Government rejected the 
application by letter dated February 8, 1988, which among other things 
is impugned in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the intention 
behind the solemn undertaking given by the State in /1iandlal Jaiswa/"s 
case clearly showed that the intention was to grant the licence to the 
petitioner rejection is contrary to the undertaking and violating the 
fundamental right of the petitioner to establish and trade in the 
manufacture and distribution of the liquor; further it is discriminatory 
is as much as licences have been issued to others similarly placed. 
Alternatively, it is contended that if it is not found feasible to grant 
licence for Ujjain, the same be granted for Ratlam Distillery. Counsel 
for the State urged that it has not been found feasible to grant licence to 
the petitioner due to grounds stated in the order which are in con-
fermity with the change in policy and the court should not interfere. On 
behalf of Rajdhani Distillery Corpn. it was urged that unless there is cut 
in the supply area of the operation of the existing licences and a separate 
supply area is carved out, no licence could be issued to the petitioner; 
that new policy is in vogue for the succeeding licensing period of 1991 to 
1993, and the licences having been issued to persons, who are not rep-
resented in this court, the court should not grant the relief asked for in 
the writ petition. 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
r: 
HELD: There is a change in the new policy which is in vogue. The 
licensing period is for two years commencing from 1.4.1991 to 
"3t.3.1993. Admittedly, the petitioner had not submitted any tender in 
terms of the new policy for manufacture of rectified spirit or liquor for 
F 
grant of D-2 and D-1

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