LexMOHD. FIDA KARIM AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MOHD. FIDA KARIM Ai'lD ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. MARCH 31, 1992 B [N.M. KASLIWAL, K. JAYACHA.i"lORA REDDY Ai1'ID G.N. RAY, JJ.] Bihai Excise Act, 1915: Sections 42 and 4J. Liquor shops~Right of vend-}.fode of settlement-Government c policy-Grant of licence for five years-Licence subject to cha11ge in policy of Government-Change of policy to auction-cum-tender me1hod-Cl1011ge in policy held valid and not violative of Article 14--Sections 42 and 43 held inapplicable to change of policy by Govemment-.Principle of promissory estoppel heid inapplicable. ~ D The State of Bihar took a policy decision to make settlement cf liquor shops for five years subject to yearly renewal on fulfilling certain condi- lions in terms of change in policy. The said policy was approved by Cabinet on 25th January, 1990. Rules were amended accordingly and published in E the official gazette. In pursuance to the said policy the appellants deposited six months licence fee for the first year of settlement on 7th March, 1990. The said policy was challenged and the Hlgh Court granted interim stay of the policy directing the Government to grant licence on yearly basis through public auction. In the meanwhile the State Govern- ment changed the policy under which the settlement of liquor shops was F to be made by auction-cum-tender method for the next year and the new policy was approved by the Cabinet on 16th August~ 1990. The appellants field writ petitions in the Patna High Court challenging the new policy of auction-cum-tender for the year 1991~92 which were dismissed. In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants G that (i) the period of licence already granted cannot be curtailed without compliance of sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Exc!se Act; (ii) Government's action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and the Govt. was estopped from adopting the new policy on the principle of promissory estoppel; and (iii) the impugned order was not a change of policy but was merely an H executive order passed on the \\Tong assumption as if the High Court had 408 -- .... -( - ~ ~ - I "" MOHD. FIDA KARIM v. STATE 409 directed the Government to review its policy. .. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD : 1. The Government was fully competent to change its policy under the terms of the grant of licence itself. The Memorandum and the A sale Notification on the basis of which the appeHants claimed the right to B continue the licence for a period of' five years, dearly mentioned that the grant of licence was on annual basis and such renewal after every year was subject to the conditions mentioned therein and also subject to any change in policy. Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act have no application in the case of change of policy by the Government. [412E-G, 413E] C 2. ,It is also well settled that the right of ~·end of excisable articles is exclusively and absolutely owned by the State Government. [412G] 3. The r.ew policy of adopting the method of auction-cum-tender is certainly a change of policy. The reason for change of policy is that the D Government realised that making setUement for five years would give rise to monopolistic tendency and the interest of revenue was not fully protected in the fo1·mer policy. There is nothing wrong in taking such .a view by the State Government and to change its poiicy in public ihterest. The appellants as such have no right to challenge the new policy. [413A-D] E 4. There was neither any promise nor there is any justification to hold that the appellants altered their position on the basis of promise. The contention based on the ground of promissory estoppel or under Article ---- 14 cannot be accepted. ( 4130-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1205 of 1992. From the Judgment and order dated 6.9.91 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2102 of 1991. Kapil Sibal, Harish N. Salve, Ranjit Kumar, G.D. Bhandari and S.C. Patel for the Appellants. M.L. Varma, B.B. Singh, Vikash Singh and L.R. Singh for the Respondents. F G H 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 2 S.C.R. A . The Judgment of this Court was delivered by ~ KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court B dated 6th September, 1991. Initially Mohd. Fida Karim and Dasrath Das had filed special leave petition challenging the dismissal of their writ ).._ petition,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.