G.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS is a special appeal against the judgment of Broome, J.. allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. K. K. Bose and quashing an order granting a hotel bar licence for the sale of foreign liquor in Form F. L. 6 to the appellant, Srimati Savitri Agarwal.
(2.) ONE J. K. Bose, uncle of res pondent No. 1. was running the Great Indian Hotel in Lucknow and held a licence in Form F. L. 6 for the retail sale of foreign liquor since 1910. Respond ent No. 1 had been assisting his uncle in (Contd. on Col. 2) the running of the hotel as well as oj the bar. In 1961. J. K. Bose died. By his will, he left the hotel and the bar business mainly to his nephew. Res pondent No. 1 applied for continuance of the bar licence in his name. A tem porary licence was first granted to him but was later revoked on the ground that liquor licences were not heritable and that respondent No. 1 had no preferential claim. Applications were then invited for the settlement of the licence held by the late J. K. Bose and a number ot persons, including the appellant and res pondent No. 1, applied for it. The ex cise authorities prepared a comparative chart of the qualifications of the various applicants and. in this chart, the quali fications of respondent No. 1 and of the appellant are mentioned thus:- S. No. Name, parentage and Address. Age on 1-4-62. Educational qualifications. Financial status. 1 5 6. Sri K K. Bose S/o late Sri M. K. Bose R/o Bose Buildings, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow and Sri V. D. Eremao No. 1 Evelyn Lodget Station Road LKO. Executors and principal beneficiaries under the will left by Sri J.K. Bose. 7. Srimati Savitri Agarwal, Radha Kutij, 55. Purana Qila, Luc-know. 36 years Well conversant in Hindi. Has enough financial resources and can invest sufficient amount. Past experience in the excise business. Particulars of the proprietary rights of the applicant over the premises to be utilised for the lodging and entertainment of travellers. Any other information. Remarks. 6 Has been intimately connected with and concerned in the business for the last about 20 years. Building of Great Indian Hotel Latouche Road. Real nephew of Sri. J.K. Bose deceased licensee. Remained in the midst of healthy business atmosphere of her family members. A building well suited for hotel and bar will be arranged in Aminabad or its vicinity. From a comparison of the relevant quali fications it is apparent that respondent No. 1 had a much better claim to the licence than the appellant. But a note was put up by the District Excise Offi cer which stated:- "Under Rule 582 of the Excise Manual. Vol. 1. the D. C. is empowered to settle the licence. Out of the appli cants No. 1 Smt. Rama Devi and No. 7 Smt. Savitri Devi Agarwal in the charf are ladies. Going through the list of the applicants, I find that the cases of Nos. 1 and 7 deserve sympathetic consideration as they are ladies. No. 6 is the real nephew of Sri J. K. Bose. the deceased licensee. Government have clearly stat ed that such licences being personal they cease with the death of the licensee and as such they are not to devolve on the basis of iheirship. In my opinion, this licence should be settled with one of the ladies who defi nitely deserve better consideration. Out of the two ladies, the claim of No. 7 is obviously much better. She is a literate woman and has enough financial resour ces for carrying out the business. She has also stated that she would be in a position to have a building for starting the bar. I would strongly recommend 'that this licence may be settled with Smt. Savitri Devi Agarwal. Radha Kunj, Purana Qila, Lucknow". This recommendation was accepted and the licence was directed to be issued to the appellant. Against the grant of this licence respondent No. 1 filed a writ peti tion in this Court which was allowed by Broome. J. Only the appellant has pre ferred an appeal against the judgment and the State and the excise authorities have not preferred any appeal. The learned Single Judge has held that the qualifications and merits of respondent No. 1 were not weighed by the excise authorities against those of the other applicants and that the licence was granted to the appellant on the ir relevant consideration that she was a woman. He has also observed that the real reason for the grant of the licence to the appellant was the political affilia tion of her husband who was an accoun tant in the office of the U. P. State Con gress Committee.
(3.) THE only point urged by Sri Shanti Bhusfaan, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the licence was not granted on an irrelevant consideration as Art. 15(3) of the Constitution permits a woman applicant to be preferred to a male applicant on the ground of sex alone. The relevant part of Art. 15 stands thus:- "15(1) The State shall not discri minate, against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. (2) .............................. (3) Nothing in this Article shall pre vent the State from making any special provision for women and children. (4) Nothing in this Article or in Cl. (2) of Art. 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes". The contention is that the taking of the decision to prefer women applicants for the licence to male applicants amounts to making a special provision for women, as contemplated by Art. 15(3). We are un able to accept this contention. ;