KULDEEP SINGH versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 06-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
KULDEEP SINGH 
A 
v. 
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 
JULY 6, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
Administrative Law-Policy decision-Application invited for grant of 
liquor licence-Subsequently, policy decision taken that no licence would be 
granted-Challenge to, by applicants seeking grant of licence-Held: Dealing C 
in liquor is not a fundamental right-Applicants did not derive any accrued 
or vested right-Policy decision could have been changed-Authority specifYing 
date of allotment of licence does not clothe the applicants with the legal 
right-Thus, doctrine of legitimate expectation not attracted-Some licence 
having been granted not a ground to issue licence, mo1eso when applicant 
has no legal right-Doctrine of legitimate expectation-Constitution of India, D 
1950. 
Respondent-Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi 
invited applications for grant of L-52 licences for retail sale of Indian Made 
Foreign Liquor-IMFL for the licencing year 2004-05 in commercial areas 
subject to certain conditions. Appellants-KS, SK and SJ filed applications E 
for grant of licence. Since large number of applications were filed, State 
notified that no new application would be accepted, however~ pending 
application would be considered. There was a huge public outcry. 
Government took a policy decision on 9.3.2005 that no fresh licence would 
be issued. However, some applications were processed. Appellant's F 
applications were not considered in terms of the excise policy of the State 
as such they filed writ petitions. High Court allowed the writ petitions 
directing State to grant licence to the appellants. State filed Letters Patent 
Appeals which were allowed. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that the State acted illegally and without G 
juri~diction in rejecting their applications for grant of L-52 licences; that 
the State adopted a pick and choose method; that the State itself having 
given the date of grant of licence, appellants derived an accrued right in 
relation thereto; that the applicants had a legitimate expectation to obtain 
335 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A licences in view of the policy decision of the State; and that the State having 
adopted particular procedures for disposal of the applications for grant 
of liquor licenses were bound thereby. 
Respondent-Gov~:rnment of NCT of Delhi contended that the 
appellants do not have any fundamental right to trade in liquor; that the 
B State having adopted a policy decision, this Court should not exercise its 
power of judicial review interfering therewith; and that in any event, no 
case is made out that the policy decision suffers from any illegality, 
irrationality or procedUJral impropriety nor any malice is attributed. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. Appellants filed applications for grant of licence 
pursuant to the policy decision adopted by the State. They might have 
invested a huge amount, but did not thereby derive any accrued or vested 
right. Therefore, unless an accrued or vested right had been derived by 
D the appellants, the policy decision could have been changed. [343-C-D] 
Lakshmi Amma alias Echuma Amma v. Devassy, (1970) KLT 204 
Howrah Municipal Corpn. and Ors. v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. and Ors., [20041 
I SCC 663, referred to. 
E 
Director of Public Works and Anr. v. HO PO Sang and Ors., (1961) 
AC 901, referred to. 
1.2. The matter relating to grant of licence for dealing in liquor is 
within the exclusive domain of the State and the citizen has no fundamental 
right to carry on business in liquor. If the State had the right to adopt a 
F policy decision, they indisputably had a right to vary, amend or rescind 
the same. The effect of a policy decision taken by the State is to be 
considered having regard to the provisions contained in Article 47 of the 
Constitution of India as also its power of regulation and control in respect 
of the trade in terms of the provisions of the Excise Act. [343-D-E) 
G 
1.3. The State had adopted a policy to grant licence on first-cum-
first-serve basis. It had in terms of the public notice dated 7.2.2005, 
intended to grant licences for 70 vends. The terms and conditions for grant 
of such licences and also the mode and manner in which such applications 
were to be filed was specified. Even time frame therefor was fixed. It 
H represented to the applicants that their cases would be considered on their 
KULDEEP SINGH v. GOVT. 

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