- (1.) BOTH these writ petitions, filed by the same petitioner, are connected with each other and are being disposed of by this Judgment. In Writ Petition No. 516 of 2006 (M/b), the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter-dated 12-4-2006, issued by respondent No. 2 and letter dated 24-4-2006, issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner, who is the manufacturer of liquor, has been asked to pay bottling fee at the enhanced rate. By means of Writ Petition No. 620 (M/b) of 2006. the petitioner has challenged vires of two notifications dated 10-5-2006 (Annexures-12 and 13 to the writ petition), whereby the respondent No. 1 has amended the U. P. Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred as Bottling Rules) and U. P. Establishment of Manufactory Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as Manufactory Rules), as applicable in Uttaranchal.
(2.) WE heard learned Counsel for the parties. Brief facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are that Petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of potable, industrial alcohol, denatured spirit etc. , having its registered office at Bareilly Road, Rampur. The petitioner company has set up various bottling units in various States for manufacture of Indian made foreign liquor brands. One of such unit was set up in the year 2004-05 in Sultanpur Patti, Bazpur, district Udham Singh Nagar (Uttaranchal ). Bottling Rules and Manufactory Rules, as existed on the date of creation of State of Uttaranchal, are applicable to the new State subject to the modifications made by the successor State. The petitioner obtained the licence under the aforesaid rules from the concerned authorities in the new State. Copies of licences FL3 under Bottling Rules and FLM 3 under Manufactory Rules, for the aforesaid year, are annexed as Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petitions. State of Uttaranchal notified its excise policy for the financial year 2006-07, vide notification dated 6- 3-2006. which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petitions. By said policy, the State Government enhanced the licence fee and the rate of bottling fee for the licence holders in the form of FL 3-A, equaling the same payable by holders of licence FLM 3. In pursuance to said policy, vide impugned letter dated 12-4-2006, the Excise Officer asked the petitioner to deposit the bottling fee at the rate applicable to holders of licences of FL 3-A against which the petitioner made a representation to the concerned authorities. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay the enhanced bottling fee and the enhancement is illegal and arbitrary.
(3.) WHILE the Writ Petition No. 516 (M/b) of 2006 was pending, the respondent No. 1 amended the Bottling Rules and the Manufactory Rules, vide two notifications dated 10-5-2006, as contained in Annexures-12 and 13 to the Writ Petition No. 620 of 2006 (M/b ). In the subsequent writ petition, i. e. 620 of 2006 (M/b), vide Annexure-12, Rule 2 (1) (a) and Rule 2 (2) of Bottling Rules were amended. It is provided that apart from distiller, brewer and vintner, bottling licence may be granted to holders of licence FLM 3 to bottle spirits, in form FL 3b. It is further provided in the amended rules that holders of FL-3b would be required to pay same rate of bottling fee. as payable at the enhanced rate by FL 3a. By amendment in Manufactory Rules, Rule 3 (6) and Rule 8 of the Manufactory Rules were amended. In Rule 8, now it is provided that manufactory shall be granted licence FL 3b instead of FL 3a to bottle the manufactured Indian made foreign liquor and the licensee shall be liable to pay bottling fee as under : (i) Bottles of 750 ml - Rs. 4. 50 per bottle. (ii) Bottles of 375 ml - Rs. 2. 25 per bottle. (iii) Bottles of 180 ml - Rs. 1. 15 per bottle. The above amended rules have been challenged by the petitioner in subsequent Writ Petition No. 620 of 2006 on the various grounds including the grounds mentioned hereunder: (1) Impugned amendments are introduced in mid of the Excise year 2006-2007 after the bottling licence granted to the petitioner had already been issued for the current year. (2) Impugned amendments made vide notifications dated 10-5-2006, are mala fide as issuance thereof is to defeat the relief prayed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 516 of 2006. (3) Impugned amendments in the Rules are In violation of the declared Excise Policy of the Government, notified vide notification dated 6-3-2006. (Annexure-5 to Writ Petition No. 516 of 2006 (M/b) ). (4) Impugned amendments are discriminatory, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, as such ultra vires. The enhancement in bottling fee is six times high as compared to old rates without any sufficient reason and the Government cannot do it as it violates the principle of quid pro quo. (5) The unreasonable enhancement in bottling fee puts unreasonable restriction on the rights of the petitioner company to carry on trade in competition with other companies involved in liquor trade. (6) The amendments made in Manufactory Rules and Bottling Rules are without any authority on the part of the Government.;