- (1.) Thirty eight persons, including the Petitioners and Respondents 4 and 5, applied for the grant of licence for sale of Indian made foreign liquor in Hari Parbat area of Agra city. After necessary enquiries, the Collector granted a licence to the two Petitioners jointly. The applications of others ware rejected. The Respondents 4 and 3 filed appeals against the grant of the licence to the Petitioners before the Excise Commissioner. The Excise Commissioner did not either serve a copy of the appeals or otherwise intimate the Petitioners about the institution of the appeals. The Petitioners having come to know of it, applied to the Excise Commissioner for an opportunity to represent their case before the appeals were disposed of. In reply, the Excise Commissioner on 6-11-1967, intimated that the Petitioners might submit a written note or narrative of their case. It was also intimated that they would be given a chance to represent their case "on the date if it is fixed for hearing the appeals". On 14-11-1967, the Petitioner applied to the Excise Commissioner foil copies of the appeals preferred by the Respondents, so that they might furnish a narrative of their case. A reminder was sent on 7-12-1967, but the Excise Commissioner did not accede to the request of the Petitioners. The Petitioners' case is that they never knew of the grounds, upon which the Respondents had challenged the grant of the licence in their favour and consequently they could not explain them. On 5-1-1968, the Excise Commissioner passed the impugned order, setting aside the grant of the licence in favour of the Petitioners and directing the Collector to settle the licence afresh with some ether suitable party in accordance with the guiding principles given in the Excise Manual.
(2.) This order has been challenged principally on the ground that principles of natural justice were attracted to the proceedings for the decision of the appeals filed by the Respondents. The Petitioners were entitled to be apprised of the grounds and materials, upon which the licence in their favour was sought to be challenged. No such opportunity was given. The impugned order violated the principles of natural justice and was void.
(3.) Section 21 of the UP Excise Act, 1910, authorises the Collector to grant a licence for selling liquors. Under Section 11 of the Act, an appeal lies to the Commissioner from an order of the Collector. Rule 359 of the Rules framed under the Act prescribes the general principles for selection of licensees. It states: 359. The following general principles are laid down for the selection of licensees: (i) Honesty and ability to supervise the shop personally are the principal qualifications of a licensee. Preference should generally be given to local residents. Education alone is not sufficient nor does the possession of a large capital make a man a suitable vendor. Capitalists who leave the work to managers and salesmen should be excluded as far as possible. (ii) As far as possible no licensee should be given more than one shop. (iii) Settlements shall be made by individual shops and licences granted for one year. Rule 339 also prescribes conditions for the grant of a licence. It is thus clear that the selection of a person for the grant of a licence is based upon various objective considerations.;