SIR SHADILAL DISTILLERY AND CHEMICALS WORKS versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 26-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SIR SHADILAL DISTILLERY AND CHEMICALS WORKS 
. A 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS. 
NOVEMBER 26, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATl;JJ.) 
B 
Liquor Shops-Licence fo1-Cancellation o~Validity'-Licence for dis-
tricts of Haridwar and Saharanpur granted to third respondent'-Subsequently 
order passed by Commissioner-Licence granted for district of Haridwar can-
celled and allotted to appellant-Writ challenging cancellation and reallotment C 
to appellant-Commissioner's order quashed by High .Court-Appeal-Held, 
the Govemment did not issue any notice before cancellation of the allotment 
made to the third respondent and the third respondent had no opportunity to 
have his say in that behalf-Under these circumstances, the direction issued 
by the High Court stands set aside-Direction to Government to consider D 
objections of appellant and third respondent-Thereafter speaking order 
should be passed for refusal or grant of licence in respect of District of Haridc 
war. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15398 of 
1996. 
E . 
. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.96 of the Allahabad High 
· Court in W.P. No. 995 of 1996. 
Salish Chandra, H.K. Pur~ Ujjwal Banerjee and Rajesh Srivastava 
for the Appellant. 
F 
U.R. Lalit, Gaurav Jain, G.E. Alam, Mrs. Abha Jain, Ms. Richa 
Goyal and A.K. Goel for the Respondent Nos. 3-4. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. 
The admitted position is that the Commissioner had invited tenders 
G 
on December 2.1, 1996 for supply of country made liquor in various districts H 
213 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A of U.P. for the year 1996-97. Pursuant thereto, parties had submitted their 
tenders. The Commissioner by his proceedings dated February 27, 1996 
allotted to the Co-operative Distillery Co. Ltd., the third respondent, the . 
Districts of Saharanpur and Haridwar. He, however, revoked the same by 
his proceedings dated March 27, 1996 and alloited the district of Haridwar 
B to the appellant. Consequently, the third respondent filed writ petition 
challenging the cancellation and reallotment to the appellant of Haridwar 
District. The High Court in the impugned order has directed in the 
operative part as under: 
c 
D 
"In the result, the writ petition is allowed and orders dated 
26.3.1996 and 27.3.1996 contained in Annexures 6 and 6-A to the 
writ petition so far as it pertains to the allotment of district 
Haridwar to respondent No. 3 are quashed. A mandamus is also 
issued commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the positfon 
as it was obtained on 27.2.1996 and the opp. parties are also . 
restrained from interfering in the rights of the petitioners to make 
supply to the district Haridwar." 
Calling this order in question, the present appeal has been filed. 
Clause 18(c) of the Tender Conditions indicates that "[I]f all the 
E aforesaid conditions are fulfilled the distillery situated in the district would 
be given preference in respect of supplies to the same. If there are two 
distilleries situated in the same district and if there is no material difference 
in the rates quoted by the said two distilleries, the distillery which was 
granted the district earlier, shall be given preference." 
F 
It is an admitted position that prior to bifurcation of districts 
Saharanpur and Haridwar, Haridwar was part of Saharanpur. It is also an 
admitted position that on the earlier occasion, the third respondent was 
granted licence for Saharanpur and Haridwar. The question remains : 
whether the factory of the third respondent is situated in Haridwar district? 
G It' is an admitted position that the third respondent's factory is not situated 
. in Haridwar District. It is also an admitted position that the respondent 
No. 3 had not executed the agreement for the purpose of issuance of the 
licence. As a result, no licence had been issued as on date. 
On these facts, the question arises : whether the allotment to the 
H . third respondent is correct in law? We need not express any opiniOn on 
SIRSHADILALDISTILLERY ANDCHEMICALSv. STATE 
215 
"' 
the facts since,. admittedly, the Government did not issue any notice before A 
cancellation of the allotment made to the third respondent on February 27, 
1996 and the third respondent had no opportunity to have his say in that 
behalf. 
Under these circumstances, the direction issued by the High Court 
stands set aside. The Governm

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