Indiver Saral vs. State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Held

The Court held that Clause-8 of the Notification dated March 19, 2018, does not suffer from any anomaly or error and is not opposed to public policy. The Court reasoned that the policy regulating the sale of liquor is statutory and operates on an annual basis, allowing for changes to meet the evolving requirements of society and public interest. Therefore, no parity could be sought from previous policies. The Court found the allegations of assisting liquor mafias to be unfounded and lacking material evidence, stating that the notification aims to meet social objectives by restricting liquor sales in open areas for the wider interest of the public. The Court rejected the contention that the minimum turnover requirement infringes upon the petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as it was considered a reasonable restriction. Regarding the renewal of the license for Writ Petition No. 832/2018, the Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the application in accordance with the law. The Court found no legal force in the argument that the same principle must be followed for liquor policies indefinitely.

Facts

Two writ petitions were filed before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging Clause-8 of Notification No. 310/XXIII/2018/04(01)/2018 dated March 19, 2018, issued by the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners, Indiver Saral and The Seven Eleven Departmental Store, argued that this clause, which imposed a minimum annual turnover of Rs. 5 crores for the sale of foreign liquor and Indian-made foreign liquor in malls and departmental stores, was opposed to public policy. Petitioner Indiver Saral held a license for dealing in foreign liquor from a retail outlet. Petitioner The Seven Eleven Departmental Store sought renewal of its license, which had been recommended by the Excise Inspector. The impugned notification was issued by the State exercising powers under Section 40 of the Uttaranchal (United Provinces Excise Act, 1910) Adoption Order 2002 read with Section 40 of the General Clauses Act, 1904.

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause-8 of the Notification dated March 19, 2018, which mandates a minimum annual turnover of Rs. 5 crores for the sale of liquor in malls and departmental stores, is opposed to public policy and therefore liable to be quashed, as argued by the petitioners. The petitioners contended that this clause infringes upon their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and that it creates an impediment to their business. They also argued for parity with previous policies of 2017 and 2018, alleging contradictions. The State, through the Additional Advocate General and Chief Standing Counsel, argued that the notification has statutory force and aims to meet social objectives by restricting liquor sales in open areas, which is in the wider interest of the public. They contended that the policy regulating liquor sales is on an annual basis and can change to meet societal needs, and that allegations of assisting liquor mafias were unfounded and lacked material evidence. The State also argued that license holders are bound by the terms and conditions of their licenses and the rules framed thereunder, especially when they impose reasonable restrictions with social implications. The Court also considered the applicability of precedents like the Arunachala Nadar case and Moti Lal case, with the petitioners relying on them and the State distinguishing them.