Rabin Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The pivotal controversy raised by the petitioner is over the withholding of public bidding of vending liquor for the period between 1.4.97 and 31.3.98 which could not gather any legal force in the advent of Rule 7(A) of the Andaman Excise Rules, 1934 on the basis of the notification dated 19.3.90. The amendment of the Excise Rules of 1934 on 19.3.90 by incorporation of Rule 7(A) has not snapped off the legal or statutory right of the petitioner. To rake up his right, he has come before this Court for enforcement of statutory duties as envisaged in Rule 7 of 1934.
(2.) However, there was a spate of litigation's between the parties in respect of vending liquor in the past and the same came to be halted by the decision of the Court. But to implement the right under the statutory cover for vending liquor, the petitioner has sought for Mandamus directing the respondents and each one of them to act in accordance with law and forthwith conduct auction as provided under Rule 7 of the Andaman Excise Rules, 1934 for granting license to the intending vendors to sell IMFL, Certiorari, Prohibition, Rule Nisi and for various other reliefs with proceed from the main relief.
(3.) The petitioner, amongst other reliefs, has sought for an interim order with a view to restrain the respondents from allowing any person or any concern to import IMFL and sell the same on and from 1.4.1997. The notification, since not published in the Gazette of India with reference to Rule 7(A), cannot blow off the right of the petitioner in vending liquor through public auction and the right of the petitioner cannot be bolted for the incorporation of Rule 7(A) to Andaman & Nicobar Excise Rules, 1934. The withholding of public auction of vending liquor for the aforesaid period deliberately transgressing Rule 7 of 1934 has affected the right of the petitioner when this writ application for the intended relief has been initiated.;