G H M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE versus K. DEVAMANI & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 18-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S
v.
K. DEVAMANI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9494-9495 of 2019)
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 – Puducherry Excise Rules,
1970 – rr. 122, 163 and 209 – Appellant sought to transfer his
licensed liquor shop from one region to another – Respondent No.
3-the Deputy Commissioner of the region where appellant sought
transfer, granted permission – Respondent No. 1 filed writ petition
– High Court set aside the permission granted to the appellant –
High Court held that the word/phrase/term ‘place’ in the Excise
Act and Excise Rules had a restrictive meaning – It was further
held that the order which permitted shifting of the wholesale liquor
shop of the appellant had to be confined to a region and not to
an entirely different region – On appeal, held : The Excise Act and
The Excise Rules uses the expression ‘local area’ in contra-
distinction with the word ‘place’, whenever it was intended to
confine the area in which the liquor shop was located – The
expression ‘from one place to another’ is not restrictive, and does
not curtail the power of the Licensing Authority to grant permission
for shifting the licensed shop from one region to another in the
Union Territory of Puducherry so long as the conditions stipulated
by the Excise Act and Excise Rules, as also the conditions for grant
of a license are complied with – The shifting should not result in
the increase in number of liquor shops beyond the maximum
number of licenses which may be fixed for a particular area
u/r.122 of the Excise Rules – Further, the permission was granted
to shift the premises subject to compliance with the conditions laid
down with r.209 of the Excise Rules – In the instant case, the
Deputy Commissioner had imposed additional two conditions – All
the conditions under the Excise Act and Rules were complied by
the appellant – The permission granted for shifting the licensed
shop was legal and valid.
   [2019] 15 S.C.R. 384
384
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
385
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The expression ‘from one place to another’ in
Rule 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970 is not restrictive,
and does not curtail the power of the Licensing Authority to
grant permission for shifting the licensed shop from one region
to another in the Union Territory of Puducherry so long as the
conditions stipulated by the Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 and
Excise Rules, as also the conditions for grant of a license are
complied with. The shifting should not result in the increase in
number of liquor shops beyond the maximum number of licenses
which may be fixed for a particular area under Rule 122 of the
Excise Rules. [Para 20] [393-G-H]
2. Given the peculiar demography of the Union Territory
of Puducherry, which comprises of four unconnected regions, it
would be contrary to the object and purpose of the Excise Act,
if a restrictive meaning was to be given to Rule 209 of the Excise
Rules. The Act must be read as a whole to ascertain the intent
of the legislature. If the intention of the legislature was to
restrict the shifting of a liquor shop to a region, locality,
municipality, or commune, Rule 209 of the Excise Act would have
expressly contained such a prohibition, which is absent. [Para
21] [394-A-B]
3. The Excise Act and the Excise Rules use the
expression ‘local area’ in contra-distinction with the word ‘place’,
whenever it is intended to confine the area in which the liquor
shop is located. [Para 22] [394-C]
4. In the present case, the Licensing Authority i.e. the
Deputy Commissioner (Excise) vide Letter dated 07.06.2018 has
granted permission to shift the F.L.1 Licensed premises of the
Appellant from one region to another, subject to compliance with
the conditions laid down in Rule 209 of the Excise Rules. The
Deputy Commissioner (Excise) from where appellant sought
transfer permitted shifting of the premises subject to two
additional conditions viz.
(i) There shall be one and the same entrance and exit
only;
M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S v. K. DEVAMANI & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
(ii) The boundary of the building should be properly
protected.
This Court was informed by the Appellant and the State
that all conditions under the Excise Act and Rules were complied
with. [Para 25] [395-A-C]
5. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 - the Deputy
Commissioner (Excise), where appellant sought transfer vide
le

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