Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Excise refusing an excise licence for extraction of juice from cashew trees on two survey properties. The petitioners claimed agricultural tenancy under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act and alleged possession since their late father, with a licence to extract juice since 1983. They contended that objection first came in 2020, and that a complaint by the respondents admitted their possession as caretakers. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Satish and Ors., and the Kerala High Court decision in C.S. Babu Chungath House. The respondents opposed the petition, relying on the impugned order and asserting disputed title and tenancy, with the owner's refusal to give no objection. The court framed the issue whether the impugned order was legal and within powers under Rule 17. The court noted the background: a 2008 tenancy application by Yeshodi Fernandes was dismissed for default; the petitioners had intervened in 2009 but never filed proceedings to establish tenancy; in 2018 they filed their own tenancy declaration and injunction application under Section 7, which remained pending; the respondents filed a civil suit in August 2018, also pending; survey records showed the mother of the respondents in the occupant column and no tenant recorded; the petitioners claimed other rights as caretaker. With rival claims pending and no prima facie finding of possession, the Excise Commissioner referred to the litigation and refused the licence because the owner refused NOC. The court held that under Section 16 read with Rule 17, the grant of licence is discretionary, and the Commissioner cannot adjudicate rival titles; refusal based on pending disputes was well within powers. It distinguished the cited precedents, noting that the Supreme Court case involved essential amenities under Rent Act and the Kerala case involved an admitted statutory tenant. It also clarified that the petitioners were not foreclosed from making a fresh application after obtaining favourable orders in the tenancy proceedings. Finding no infirmity, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 and rejected the petition with no costs.
Headnote
A) Excise Law - Grant of Licence - Discretion of Excise Commissioner - Excise Act, Sections 15, 16 and Excise Rules, Rule 17 - The Commissioner of Excise refused to grant a juice extraction licence because the owner of the properties withheld no objection and rival claims of tenancy and title were pending before judicial fora. The High Court held that the Commissioner's discretion under these provisions is broad, and the refusal based on unresolved rival claims was well within his powers. Held that there was no infirmity in the impugned order (Paras 10, 14). B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 - The petitioner invoked the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The High Court held that since the Excise Commissioner's order was within his powers and did not suffer from any infirmity, no case for interference was made out. Held that the petition was rejected with no costs (Paras 14-15). C) Precedent - Distinguishability of Cited Judgments - Essential Amenities and Trade Licence to Statutory Tenant - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482; Rent Control Act - The petitioner relied on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court judgments. The High Court distinguished them: the former concerned electricity as essential amenity in Rent Act context, and the latter involved an admitted statutory tenant requiring no NOC. Held that those cases were inapplicable because the present case involved a disputed tenancy claim not yet adjudicated (Paras 11-12). D) Remedy - Reapplication - Conditional Right to Fresh Licence - Excise Act, Sections 15, 16 and Excise Rules, Rule 17 - The High Court clarified that petitioners were not foreclosed from applying afresh for a licence if they obtained orders in their favour in the pending tenancy application before the Mamlatdar. Held that depending on the outcome of the litigation, they could re-apply (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner of Excise's order dated 11.02.2021 refusing excise licence for juice extraction was legal and within powers under Section 15 of the Excise Act read with Rule 17 of the Excise Rules.
Final Decision
The petition was rejected. No costs.
Law Points
- Excise Commissioner has discretion to grant or refuse licence under Section 15/16 of Excise Act read with Rule 17 of Excise Rules
- Commissioner cannot adjudicate rival title or tenancy claims
- owner's refusal of no objection is valid ground to refuse licence when tenancy claim is disputed and unadjudicated
- Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction not to interfere absent infirmity
- petitioner may reapply after obtaining favourable order from tenancy court
