AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) THIS Revenue Bench of the High Court has been flooded with several writ petitions made by the purported holders of licence to run the respective retail liquor shops challenging the new excise policy of the State made in the year 2009, followed by the respective rules and the notifications, for the purpose of allotment of licence of retail liquor shops for the excise year 2009-10. Some of the writ petitions are made by the licence holders of the retail shops falling within the special zone constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Demarcation and Regulation of Special Zones for Exclusive Privilege of Excise Shops Rules, 2009 (hereinafter in short called as the 'Demarcation Rules, 2009'), their cases are segregated and categorised as 'special zone category'. The other petitioners, whose existing retail shops are not within such zone but in the zone governed by the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter in short called as the 'Rules, 2009'), are segregated and categorised as 'general zone category'. Some of the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Retail Licences for Model Shop of Foreign Liquor) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter in short called as the 'Model Shop Rules, 2009'), their cases are segregated and categorised as 'model shop category'.
(2.) BASIC grievance of all such writ petitioners is for renewal of their existing licences for the excise year 2009-10. To that extent they are similarly placed and are similarly affected. It appears from the Demarcation Rules, 2009 that the special zone has been constituted for the following objects and reasons: "Whereas out of various zones of Excise department in Uttar Pradesh namely Varanasi, Lucknow, Meerut and Agra, the Meerut zone having maximum population density does not have per capita revenue from Country liquor in comparison to its bordering States. The reason thereof is that certain people of this State often visit bordering State of Haryana, Delhi and Uttarakhand for consuming liquor, bring with them personally from such States and as such the liquor is being smuggled at large scale. The enforcement work upto December, 2008 also confirm this fact in which there were 260 cases of inter-state smuggling in Meerut Zone. Besides the loss of revenue, this situation is also detrimental to public health and safety, public interest and public order as well."
(3.) AS per Rule 2(c) of the Demarcation Rules, 2009, 'Apex Cooperative Body' means a cooperative body wherein the share of the State Government is not less than fifty one percent and shall also include any joint venture partnership of such society for the purpose of these rules. The apex cooperative body has been formed. It has made its joint venture partnership with one M/s. Amethyst Town Planners Private Limited, respondent no. 5 herein, for the excise year 2009-10 on deposit of Rs. 400 crores. So far as general zone is concerned, selection has been directed to be made by public lottery upon inviting fresh applications for the excise year 2009-10. So far as model shop is concerned, fresh applications are also invited for allotment of such shops for the excise year 2009-10. All the notifications were issued during the excise year 2008-09 sometimes in the month of February, 2009 but admittedly no representations were made for the purpose of renewal of their respective licences. According to the petitioners, when notifications were being published for the purpose of grant of new licence for the excise year 2009-10, they thought it fit that applications for renewal will be futile attempt, hence invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court directly. However, petitioners were not debarred from carrying on their business upto the expiry of the excise year 2008-09 on 31st March, 2009 since when the tenure of respective licences were existing.;