S.C.SEN - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE appellant, Ramnarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., and Associated Alcohols and Breweries Ltd., the respondent No. 1, are both manufacturers of potable alcohol. THE respondent No. 1 belongs to Kedia Group of Distilleries Companies and enjoys a virtual monopoly in the manufacture of potable alcohol in the State of Madhya Pradesh along with two other business houses. According to the appellant, this monopoly continued until the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal, AIR 1987 SC 251, in which the policy-decision of the State Government to grant licence to set up new distilleries at new sites was upheld. On 26/04/1993 the Under-Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Commercial Taxation Department, issued an order to the Excise Commissioner. By this order, the State Government granted permission to give licence in favour of the appellant to manufacture potable alcohol in the interest of more competition. The order was to the following effect :- "GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH COMMERCIAL TAXATION DEPARTMENT No. B-1-64/85/VA.KAR/5 Bhopal dated 26/04/1993 To, The Excise Commissioner, M. P. Gwalior, Subject : Regarding grant of DI licence to Messers Ramnarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal, Bilaspur for manufacture of industrial alcohol. Reference : Your memo No. 3/2/670 dated 20-4-1993. The State Government grants permission for manufacture of potable alcohol in order to encourage greater competition for issuance of licence to Messers Ramnarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Chherka Bench, Bilaspur, which produces industrial alcohol. 2. In accordance with earlier cases the distiller would be responsiable for the other licence/permission which they may be required to obtain from Government of India and other departments of the State Government for the manufacture of potable alcohol. By order and in name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh (R. S. DUBEY) Government of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Taxation Department." This was followed up by another order, issued by the Additional Excise Commissioner on 29/04/1993 which was as under :- "OFFICE OF THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER MADHYA PRADESH, OTI MAHAL, GWALIOR. No. 3/2/19-83/920 Gwalior dated 29-4-1993 To, M/s. Ramnarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Chherpha Bandha, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh. Subject : Regarding grant of licence DI to M/s. Ramnarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal, Bilaspur for manufacture of industrial alcohol. Reference : The previous memo No. B-1-64/85/ Va. Kar 5 dated 26-4-1993 of the State Government, Commercial Taxation Department. With reference to the aforesaid Government order, permission is granted to you to manufacture potable alcohol under the DI licence granted to you on the condition that you would be responsible for obtaining the necessary licence/permission from the Government of India and other deapartments of the State Government according to rules applicable thereto and further that you would be required to follow all the necessary terms and conditions under the Excise Act. Sd/- Additional Excise Commissioner Madhya Pradesh."
(3.) THE aforesaid two orders were passed in pursuance to the appellant's application for permission to manufacture potable alcohol. THE appellant has claimed that the order dated 26-4-1993 clearly states that it shall be the responsibility of the appellant to obtain such licence/permission, as is necessary, from any other department of the Central Government and the State Government. All other distilleries in Madhya Pradesh are being run on similar terms and conditions. THE same procedure was followed by the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of all distilleries in Madhya Pradesh, including the distilleries belonging to Associated Alcohol and Breweries Ltd., the respondent No. 1 and Anand Kumar Kedia, the respondent No. 2. According to the appellant, the trouble started in this case when the Excise Commissioner issued a notice dated 8-7-1993 inviting tenders for supply of country liquor in 19 supply areas of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not directly submit any tender, but another concern of the Kedia Group i.e. Castle Douglas Industries Limited, submitted its tender. The prices tendered by the appellant and the Castle Douglas Industries Limited were as under :- JUDGEMENT_563_4_1995Html1.htm ;