Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the State of Bihar's decision to change its liquor licensing policy from a five-year settlement to an auction-cum-tender method. The appellants, Mohd. Fida Karim and Dasrath Das, challenged this new policy after initially agreeing to the terms of the five-year settlement approved by the Cabinet on January 25, 1990. They deposited the required licence fee and claimed a right to continue under the old policy. However, the State Government amended its policy in August 1990, citing concerns over monopolistic tendencies and inadequate revenue protection under the previous system. The appellants filed writ petitions in the Patna High Court, which were dismissed, leading to their appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that the Government's action violated Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act and was arbitrary under Article 14. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the Government was competent to change its policy as the original grant of licence was subject to annual renewal and potential policy changes. The court found no basis for the appellants' claims of promissory estoppel and affirmed that the right to vend excisable articles was exclusively owned by the State. The court also directed the State to return National Saving Certificates submitted by licensees under the old policy, except for those involved in ongoing civil suits. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Change of Policy - Government's Competence to Change Policy - Bihar Excise Act, 1915, Sections 42, 43 - The Government was competent to change its policy regarding liquor licensing as the grant of licence was on an annual basis and subject to change. The appellants had no right to challenge the new policy as it was in public interest to avoid monopolistic tendencies (Paras 412E-G, 413A-D). B) Constitutional Law - Promissory Estoppel - Applicability of Promissory Estoppel - Not applicable in this case as there was no promise made to the appellants that could alter their position. The court held that the appellants could not claim rights based on promissory estoppel or Article 14 (Paras 413D-E). C) Administrative Law - Return of Security - National Saving Certificates - The State Government was directed to return National Saving Certificates submitted as security by licensees under the old policy within two months, except for those who filed civil suits (Paras 414).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government's change in liquor licensing policy from a five-year settlement to an auction-cum-tender method was valid and not violative of Article 14.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the government was competent to change its liquor licensing policy and that the appellants had no right to challenge the new policy. The court directed the State to return National Saving Certificates submitted by licensees under the old policy.
Law Points
- Government policy change
- liquor licensing
- promissory estoppel
- Article 14
- Bihar Excise Act
- 1915
- Sections 42
- 43
