LexSTATE OF M.P. & ANR. versus KEDIA GREAT GALEON LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 4 S.C.R. !63 STATE ()f M.P. & ANR. v. KEDIA GREAT GALEON LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 921-922 of2008) FEBRUARY 28, 2017 [RANJAN GOGOi AND ASHOK BHUSJIAN, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1995: Rule 4(41) - Notice to licensee under the Act - Demanding certain amount as excess expenditure on the establishment of officers and employees - Challenged by filing writ petition without challenging the vires of r. 4(41) - Single Judge of High Court quashed the demand notice holding the same as arbitrary and unreasonable - Single Judge though opined that r. 4(41) seems to be ultra vires MP. Excise Act beyond the rule making powe1~ but in absence of any prayer in this regard,· did not give any order in that behalf- Writ appeal dismissed - On appeal, held: Vires. of the Rules, since .was not challenged by the writ petitioner, cannot be looked into by this Court - No sufficient foundation was. laid in the writ petition ta. enter into the issue as to whether the demaiid·was arbitrary and unreasonable - However, liberty is granted to the respondent to represent against the demand notice. Disposing of the appeals; the Court HE.LD: 1. Under the Rules of the High Court, the Bench hearing the writ petition was not competent to pass the order, decla!'ing Rules ultm vires. The statement in the counter-affidavit, indicates that there was some specific Bench for hearing constitutional issues regarding vires of the Rules. Had the writ petitioner intended to challenge the vires of the Rules, he had to file the writ petition for appropriate relief before the Bench having roster to decide the vires. Thus, it is clear that writ petitioner never intended to challenge the vires of the Rul~s. Something which writ petitioner never intended or prayed for, cannot be looked into in this ;ippeal. [Para 40] (177-F-H) 1.63 A B c D E F G H 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (AA) and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 338 : [2009] 4 SCR 1183 - distinguished. Girimallappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer Mand MIP and Another (2012) 11 SCC 548 : [2012] 6 SCR B 975 - held inapplicable. 2.1. Those who come forward to seek privilege of the State to manufacture or sell the liquor have to abide by the statutory regulations and terms and conditions of the licence. The privilege is not thrust upon anyone rather it is sought by intending persons c or parties by participating in auctions for settling such right or by obtaining licence for such privilege in accordance with the statutory provisions. [Para 22] [171-E-F] Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. The Excise Co111111issio11er, Ajmer AIR 1954 SCC 220 : [1954) SCR 873; Har D Shankar and Ors. v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 737 : (1975) 3 SCR 254 - referred to. E F G H Crowley v. Christensen 34 L ED 620 - referred to. 2.2. A perusal of the writ petition indicates that no sufficient foundation was laid in the writ petition to enter into the issue as to whether the demand is arbitrary and unreasonable. I<rom the details of the demand, it is further clear that in the demand for the year 1996-97 expenditure on salary was shown as Rs. 4,36,897 /- but no figure pertaining to the Revenue of the said year is mentioned, whether the distillery could function during the relevant period and without there being any Revenue, how the expenditure on salary is fastened on respondent, is not explained. [}'.ara 52] [185-B-CJ 2.3 However, taking into consideration the overall circumstances, ends of justice will be served in giving liberty to the respondent to represent against the demand notice dated 23'd March, 1989 before the State. The State Government shall consider such representation taking into consideration relevant facts relating to concerned years and the other factors as relevant in the present case. [Para 54] [186-B] STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. KEDIA GREAT GALEON LTD. 165 Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Mis. Anabeshahi A Wine and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (1988) 2 SCC 25 - relied on. Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh Etc. 1970 (2) sec 467 : [1971] 1 SCR 844; Mis. - Lilasons Breweries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Madhya B Pradesh and Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 293 : (1992] 2 SCR 595 - held inapplicable. State of MP. v. Firm Gapulal (1976) 1SCC791: [1976] 2 SCR 1041; Excise Commissioner, U.P. v. Ram Kumar (1976) 3 SCC 540 : [1976] Suppl. SCR 532;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.