LexSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus B. SIX HOLIDAY RESORTS (P) LTD. & ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 1 STATE OF KERALA & ANR. v. B. SIX HOLIDAY RESORTS (P) LTD. & ETC. (C.A. Nos. 983-990 of 2003 & Ors. Etc.) JANUARY 13, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Foreign Liquor Rules: (Kera/a) r. 13(3), last proviso (as substituted on 20.2.2002 w.e.f. .1. 7. 2001) - Effect of on pending applications for FL-3 Licence - Applications for grant of licence made in the years 2000 and 2001 - Rejected on 20.2.2002, keeping in view the Rules as A B c in force on 20. 2. 2002 -c.Jf ELD: Having regard to the fact that D the State has exclusive privilege of manufacture and sale of liquor, and no citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor, the applicant~ did not have a vested right to get a licence - The application for licence requires verification, inspection and processing - In such circumstances, · the application for FL-3 licence should be E decided only with reference to the rules/law prevailing or in force on the date of consideration of the application and not as on the date of application - Consequently, the direction by the High Court that the application for licence should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed on the F date of application cannot be sustained and is set aside - Abkari Act 61 of 1977 (Kera/a) - Liquor. [Para 15-16] r. 13(3), last proviso (as substituted on 20.2.2002) - Proviso challenged as being beyond the main provision in G r. 13(3) - HELD: A proviso may either qualify or except certain provisions from the main provision or it can change the very concept of the intendment of the main provision by incorporating certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled or it 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A can temporarily suspend operation of the main provision - Ultimately, the proviso has to be construed upon its terms - Merely because it suspends or stops further operation of the main provision, the proviso does not become invalid - If the policy is not open to challenge, the amendments to s implement the policy are also not open to challenge - In the instant case, when the amendment was made on 20.2.2002, the object of the newly added proviso was to stop the grant of fresh licences until a policy was finalized - Rule 13(3) provides for grant of licences to sell foreign liquor in Hotels c (Restaurants) - It contemplates the Excise Commissioner issuing licences under the orders of the State Government in the interest of promotion of tourism in the State, to hotels and restaurants conforming to standards specified therein - It also provides for the renewal of such licences - The substitution 0 of the last proviso tor. 13(3) by Notification dated 20.2.2002 providing that no new licences under the said Rule shall be issued, does not nullify the licences already granted -Nor does it interfere with renewal of the existing licences - If on account of the fact that sufficient licences had already been E granted or in public interest, the State takes a policy decision not to grant further licences, it cannot be said that the same would defeat the Rules - It merely gives effect to the policy of the State not to grant fresh licences until further orders - The challenge to the validity of the proviso is therefore rejected - It is clarified that (i) if any licences have been F granted or regularized in the case of any of the applicants during the pendency of this litigation, on the basis of any further amendments to the Rules, the same will not be affected by this decision; (ii) if any licence has been granted in pursuance of any interim order, the licence shall continue G till the expiry of the current excise year for which the licence has been granted and (iii) this decision will not come in the way of any fresh application being made in accordance with law or consideration thereof by the State Government. [Para 17-18] H STATE OF KERALA & ANR. v. B. SIX HOLIDAY 3 RESORTS (P) LTD. & ETC. Ku/deep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2006 (3) Suppl. A SCR 335 = (2006) 5 SCC 702; State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone & Ors. 1981 (2) SCR 7 42 = 1981 (2) SCC 205; Union of India & Ors. v. Indian Charge Chrome & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 314; Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co.Ltd. 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 1212 = (2004 (1) sec 663, relied on. s Case Law Reference: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 335 relied on para 9 1981 (2) SCR 742 relied on para 10.1 c (1999) 1 sec 314 relied on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.