K. D. SHARMA, J. - (1.) AS common questions of facts and law are involved in these two writ petitions, they are disposed of together by a common order.
(2.) THE facts stated in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 524 of 1978 Gauri Lal vs. THE State are as follows: - Gauri Lal petitioner obtained a licence from the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Liquor Prohibition Rules, 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Rules, for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor for the financial year 1970-71. The licence was renewed every year by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition, in accordance with the said rules. The last renewal was upto March 31,1978. After the expiry of the term of the renewed licence, the petitioner presented an application on February 20, 1978, for further renewal thereof. He deposited in the Government Treasury, Binswara, a sum of Rs. 3500/. , as fees for the renewal. The State Government brought about an increase in the fees for the renewal and directed the Excise Commissioner to recover the fees at the enhanced rate. The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition, thereupon, directed the non-petitioner No. 6, i. e. Assistant Excise and Prohibition Officer, Dungarpur, and the Excise Ins-pector, Prohibition), Banswara, to ask the petitioner to deposit the enhanced fees, so that formal orders regarding renewal of licence may be passed. The petitioner, therefore, deposited the required sum of Rs. 2000/-, vide challans Nos. 382 and 383 dated March 10, 1978. As the renewed licences are issued at a date subsequent to the commencement of the financial year, i. e. April 1, the petitioner continued to sell liquor upto April 3, 1978. Thereafter, a direction was issued to the petitioner to stop the sale of the foreign liquor which was in his possession till further orders. The petitioner made necessary enquiries from the Excise Inspector, Prohibition), Banswara and the Assistant Excise and Prohibition Officer, Dungarpur and the licensing authority as to why such a direction for stoppage of sale of liquor was given to him. He came to know upon enquiry that the State Government was about to take some decision in the matter of fees for licence. Later on, he came to know that the Cabinet of the Rajasthan Government had taken a decision that the licence for the current year, i. e. 1978-79 for sale of Indian made foreign liquor would be given to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. although the latter had not applied for licence, nor had deposited any amount on or before the 15th August, 1978. As the decision of the non-petitioners Nos 1 to 7 regarding grant of licence to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. is ab-initio void, illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioner has invoked the wrti jurisdiction of this court on various grounds, which are set out in detail in his writ petition. Similar are the facts stated in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No 624 of 1978 Magan Behari Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan. The petitioner in this writ petition obtained a licence under the Rajasthan Foreign Liquor, Grant of Wholesale Trade and Retail Licences) Rules, 1972, for sale of Indian made foreign liquor in Jodhpur in the year 1972. He got his licence renewed every year under the provisions of the said Rules. The term of his renewed licence for the year 1977-78 expired on March 31,1978. Upon expiry of the term of the licence, he applied for renewal thereof on February 27, 1978, and deposited a fees of Rs. 3000/-, together with an amount of Rs 1500/-, as vend fees in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on February 27, 1978 Later on, the Rajasthan Government introduced prohibition in Jodhpur District including Jodhpur City from April 1, 1978 Upon introduction of prohibition, the petitioner approached the District Excise Officer, Jodhpur, and requested him for renewal of his licence for a further period of one year. The petitioner was informed by the District Excise Officer that the matter regarding renewal of licences for the sale of Indian made foreign liquor is under consideration of the State Government and no useful purpose will be served by filing any fresh application for fresh grant of licence lor sale of Indian made foreign liquor till the matter is finally decided by the State Government The petitioner and other licences are members of an Association, known as Jodhpur Wine Merchants' Association'. The said Association made several representations to the State Government as well as to the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, on their behalf regarding grant of licence for sale of liquor but the representations were not considered. Later on, the petitioner came to know that the Rajasthan State has issued an order dated August 3, 1978, that licences for sale of Indian made foreign liquor will be given to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd non-petitioner No. 4 for all the areas where prohibition has been introduced. By this order Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd was allowed to open a shop for retail sale for Indian made foreign liquor at Jodhpur As the Rajasthan State has granted monopoly for sale of liquor to a Company, namely, Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd vide its order dated August 3, 1978, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this court on the ground that the order passed by the State Government is wholly illegal and void for reasons set out in detail in the writ-petition. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 524 of 1978 filed by Gauri Lal was put up for admission before this Court on August 30, 1978. A notice was issued to the non-petitioners to show cause why the writ petition should not be admitted. In response to the notices, Mr. D. S. Shisodia appeared on behalf of non petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 and filed a written reply. Mr. A. K. Mathur put in appearance on behalf of non petitioner No. 8 and submitted a written reply to the writ-petition. I have carefully perused the record and heard at length Mr. H. M. Parekh and Mr. D. L. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. S. Shisodia Government Advocate and Mr. A. K. Mathur for Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Firstly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that under Rule 9 of the Prohibition Rules, if a person desires to obtain a licence in form R. Pn. 3, he shall have to apply to the Excise Commissioner throuth the District Excise Officer and the Excise Commissioner is empowered under Rule 8 to grant a licence for retail vend off brandy. According to the learned counsel, the Ganganagar Sugar Mils Ltd did not submit any application under Rule 9 to the Excise Commissioner through the District Excise Officer prior to August 13, 1978, for the grant of licence for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor at Banswara and so the decision of the Rajasthan Government's Cabinet and the subsequent steps taken by the non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 to implement the said decision regarding grant of licence to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. for retail sale of the liquor is violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and is in direct contravention of the provisions of Rule 9a of the Prohibition Rules and Rule 72a of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Excise Rules The above contention has no farce, because no time limt is prescribed either in Rule 9 of the Prohibition Rules or Rule 72 A of the Excise Rules for filing an application by a person desirous of obtaining a licence for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor. It is clearly stated in the written reply filed on behalf of Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. that a regular application was made by Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. under the Prohibition Rules to the Excise Commissioner for obtaining licence for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor and the Excise Commissioner issued the licence upon such application. Unless there is time-limit prescribed under the Prohibition Rules or under the Excise Rules for filing an application for obtaining such a licence, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the licence was granted to Ganganagar Sugar Mills in contravention of the said rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners merely argued that no application for obtaining the licence was presented by Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. to the Excise Commissioner prior to August 16,1978. It is not the case of the petitioners that the licence was issued to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. without there being an application filed by it. Apart from this, the term of the renewed licences granted to the petitioners expired on March 31, 1978. They have no claim to the renewal of their licences or for compensation for non-renewal there of, as is evident from S. 37 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, hereinafter, referred to as the Act, which reads as follows; - "37. No renewal of licence or compensation on determination or renewal licence claimable. No person to whom a licence has been granted under this Act shall have any claim to the renewal of such licence, or to any claim for compensation on the determination or non-renewal thereof. " The Excise Commissioner, therefore, committed no illegality when he granted a licence to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. for retail vend off liquor under Rule 8 of the Prohibition Rules.
(3.) THE next point urged by H. M. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the decision of the State Government taken on August 2, 1978, is inconsistent with the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the Rajasthan Prohibition Act and the rules made thereunder. According to his submission, the State Government has no jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of the statutory powers vested in the Excise Commissioner, who a one was em-powered to grant the requisite licence for retail sale of liquor upon receipt of an application under Rule 72a of the Rajasthan Excise Rules filed by a person desirous of obtaining such a licence. It was further argued that there were arrears of excise outstanding against Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and so its application for licence must have been rejected for this reason as laid down by the Rajasthan Foreign Liquor, Grant of Wholesale and Retail off Licence) Rules, 1972, which were made by the State Government in exercise of the powers under section 41 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. THE above contention also has no force. It is no doubt true that before a person becomes eligible to apply for a retail off licence he should not possess any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-rule, 7) of Rule 3 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1972. One of the disqualifications mentioned in sub rule, 7) of the said Rules is that if there are arrears of excise dues outstanding against the applicant, his application for licence shall liable to be rejected for this reason. In the present case there is nothing on the record to show that at the time when retail licence for sale of foreign liquor was granted to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. , there were arrears of excise dues outstanding against it Under sub-rule, 5) of Rule 3 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the District Excise Officer was bound to record a note whether or not the applicant was suffering from any of the disabilities to hold a licence mentioned in sub rule, 7) there of. THE petitioner could not show that any such note was recorded by the District Excise Officer or that the Excise Commissioner granted the licence to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd despite such note regarding disabilities to hold a licence Unless it is established that any sum was due from Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. towards arrears of excise dues, the licence cannot be said to have been illegally issued to it. Apart from this, if it is brought to the notice of the Excise Commissioner that Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. suffered from any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-rule, 7) of Rule 3 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1972, but has purposely concealed it by giving a false declaration, he is empowered, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being beard to the petitioners, to cancel the sanction issued for grant of licence and forfeit the entire fees paid on its behalf. It will not be out of place to mention that it is evident from Ex. R. 2 that the licence was granted to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act and the Prohibition Rules, which applied to all prohibited areas in the State. Under the Prohibition Rules, there is no provision that an application for licence shall be liable to be rejected for the reason that there are arrears to excise dues outstanding against the applicant. Under Rule 8 of these Rules the Excise Commissioner may grant a licence in form RPn. 3 for retail vend off brandy. Of course, under rule 9 of these Rules he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant the licence. Be that as it may, the licence granted to Ganganagar Sugar Mills for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor cannot be held to be invalid merely because the petitioner contends that there were some excise dues outstanding against it when the licence was granted, especially when the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 did not say that any such disqualification wa3 possessed by the licencee. The next contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dealing in liquor is a business and the petitioners are entitled to do business in this commodity, subject to imposition of reasonable restriction on the said right by any law made by the State in the public interest. It was further urged that the decision taken by the State Government for giving a licence to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. for retail sale of country made liquor off the premises violated the principle of equality before the law and contravened the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 19, 1), f) and, g) of the Constitution of India, because no guide-lines were laid down in the Prohibition Act or the Prohibition Rules in the matter of exercise of discretion vested in the Executive. A cording to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the notification issued by the State Government and the subsequent action taken by the Excise and Prohibition Commissioner, non petitioner No. 5, resulted in creating a monopoly in favour of Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor in direct contravention of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his above contention, Mr. H. M. Parekh relied upon Nashirwar vs. State of M. P. , 1), Har Shankar vs. Dy. E. & T. Commr. , 2), Devi Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 3) M/s Gehlot Engineering Wine Store Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 4), Cooverjee Vs. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer, 5), State of Orissa Vs. Harinarayan, 6), Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd vs. Union of India, 7), and Gordhan Lal Vs. State, 8) and contended on their strength that the petitioners, being old licencees with a clean slate, were entitled to receive a preferential treatment, but they were not given even the treatment which is given to the equals Mr. D. S. Shishodia and Mr. A. K. Mathur appearing on behalf of the non petitioners, on the other hand, contended that it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India are not attracted to the trade or business of liquor in which a citizen has no fundamental right. According to them, the State Government has absolute power to enforce prohibition and manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors on the grounds of public morality and social welfare. It was further argued that the petitioners have no right to file the writ petitions, as the State Government was competent to lay down a policy to vend liquor in dry areas through its agency, i. e. Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Reliance in support of the above contention was placed on Krishan Kumar vs. J. & K. State, 9), District Collector, Hyderabad vs. Ibrahim & Go- (10), Rasbihari vs. State of Orissa, 11), Har Shanker vs. Dy. E. T. Commr. , Supra) and Guruswamy vs. State of Mysore, 12 ). I have carefully gone through ail the authorities cited at the bar. In my opinion, 'he State is empowered to prohibit trade or business in liquor, as it is injurious to health and welfare of the public and as no person has a fundamen-tal right to deal in liquor. Certain trades and activities can be excluded from the purview of Art 19 (1), g)of the Constitution of India on the ground of their adverse and injurious effects on public health and morality and one of those trades and activities is the trade or business in liquor. Reference in this connection may be made to Har Shankar vs. Dy. E & T. Commr. , Supra), wherein their Lordships were pleased to make the following observations after taking into consideration the previous decisions of the Supreme Court on this point; - "there is no fundamental right to do so trade or business in intoxicants. The State, under its regulatory powers, has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifestations, these rights are vested in the State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various forms of activities in relation to intoxicants. In "american Jurisprnudence", Volume 30 it is stated that while engaging in liquor traffic is not inherently unlawful nevertheless it is a privilege and not a right; subject to governmental control, page 538 ). This power of control is an incident of the society's right to self protection and it rests upon the rights of the State to care for the health, morals and welfare of the people. Liquor traffic is a source of pauperism and crime. " In view of the referred to authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court it cannot be held that the State has no exclusive privilege in respect of manufacture, possession, sale or consumption of intoxicating liquors and drugs. As the State Government has such exclusive privilege no question of infringement of Article 19 (l) (g) or Article 14 of the Constitution of India does arise. Consequently, the State Government committed no illegality in granting exclusive right to vend liquor to Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. on such terms as it deemed expedient. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the referred to above judgment further observed in para 54 thereof that if the State Government has a wider right to bring about absolute prohibition of the consumption of liquor, it possesses the narrower right also to allow dealings in liquor on such terms as it may deem fit and expedient. ;