- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Janshi And Company v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners were dealers in Indian-made foreign liquor who originally held composite wholesale-cum-retail licences for the city of Madras. After the State authorities separated wholesale and retail operations, a single wholesale licence for the entire city was granted to one M. Subbarama Reddy, excluding the petitioners. The petitioners responded by filing several writ petitions (WP Nos. 6797 of 1981, 8278–8279 of 1981 and 1357 of 1982) challenging the constitutional validity of specified sections of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1960, as well as certain administrative notifications and orders that flowed from those provisions.
The petitions were part-heard and adjourned on March 23 1982. Before the next hearing date, the State enacted the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act 42 of 1982 and amended relevant rules; additionally, the wholesale licence earlier issued to M. Subbarama Reddy was cancelled. When the matters were taken up again on September 14 1982, similar civil appeals were withdrawn, and the State submitted that, owing to the legislative and administrative changes, nothing survived in the writ petitions. The petitioners agreed that the original challenges had become academic but sought liberty to make representations regarding the number of wholesale depots to be permitted in each district.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Sections 17-C, 17-D, 17-E, 18-B, 20-B and 23-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (as they existed prior to Amendment Act 42 of 1982) infringed Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- Whether Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16, 18, 21 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1960 were unconstitutional for similar reasons.
- Whether the notifications dated June 12 1981 and the subsequent orders of August 1981 granting exclusive wholesale licences were void.
- In the changed circumstances, whether any relief survived and what consequential directions, if any, should be issued.
Arguments of the Parties
State of Tamil Nadu
- Contended that after Amendment Act 42 of 1982 and the cancellation of the impugned wholesale licence, the writ petitions had become infructuous.
Petitioners
- Accepted that the original challenges had been neutralised by the legislative amendments.
- Requested an opportunity to make written representations on the appropriate number of wholesale depots for Indian-made foreign spirits in each district.
- Sought a direction that fresh notifications inviting applications for wholesale licences be issued within a definite time-frame.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the statutory amendments and the cancellation of the exclusive wholesale licence effectively removed the foundation of the petitioners’ constitutional and administrative challenges. Consequently, the petitions did not warrant adjudication on the merits of their original claims.
However, recognising the practical concern voiced by the petitioners regarding the number of wholesale depots, the Court exercised its discretion to grant limited relief. It recorded the State’s concession that written representations could be made and directed a structured timetable: representations to be filed within two weeks from September 15 1982, considered by the Government without oral hearing, and a fresh notification for wholesale licences to issue within four weeks from October 1 1982.
Holding and Implications
The writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous.
Implications: Although no constitutional determination was rendered, the Court ensured procedural fairness by permitting the petitioners to participate in the forthcoming licensing process. The order obliges the Government to (i) consider written representations on depot numbers, (ii) issue a fresh licensing notification within the stipulated period, and (iii) evaluate any applications, including those from the petitioners, on their merits. The decision sets no new precedent but provides immediate administrative guidance and preserves the petitioners’ commercial opportunities. No order as to costs was made.
A. Varadarajan, J.— The writ petitioners were dealers in Indian-made foreign liquor. They were holders of composite wholesale and retail dealers' licences. Now, the wholesale and retail licences for dealing in such liquors have been delinked and separate licences were issued to wholesale dealers and retail dealers. The wholesale dealer's licence for the entire city of Madras was issued to one M. Subbarama Reddy, the 3rd respondent in WP No. 6797 of 1981 and not to any of the writ petitioners. The writ petitions were filed in these circumstances.
2. The reliefs prayed for in Writ Petition No. 6797 of 1981 are: (a) to declare Sections 17-C, 17-D, 20-B and 23-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 as amended, as unconstitutional and liable to be struck down; (b) to declare Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16, 18 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1960 to be unconstitutional and liable to be struck down; (c) to declare that the notification dated June 12, 1981 issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Tamil Nadu is void and to quash the same; and (d) to declare that the order dated August 29, 1981 is void and to quash the same.
3. The reliefs prayed for in WPs Nos. 8278 and 8279 of 1981 are: (a) to declare the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and in particular Sections 17-C, 17-D, 17-E, 18-B, 20-B and 23-A of that Act to be unconstitutional and void as being violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; (b) to declare Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16, 18 and 21 of the above Rules to be un constitutional and void as being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; (c) to declare the notification dated June 12, 1981 issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Tamil Nadu, the 2nd respondent as null and void; and (d) to quash the order dated August 29, 1981 as being unconstitutional and void.
4. The prayers in WP No. 1357 of 1982 are: (a) to declare Sections 17-C, 17-D, 20-B and 23-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 as amended to be unconstitutional and therefore liable to be struck down; (b) to declare Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16, 18 and 22 of the aforesaid Rules as unconstitutional and liable to be struck down; (c) to declare the Notification dated June 12, 1981 issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Tamil Nadu, the 2nd respondent, as void and to quash the same; and (d) to declare that the order dated August 14, 1981 passed by the 2nd respondent granting licence to M. Subbarama Reddy and any other licence or licences issued to Respondents 6 to 17 to be void and quash the same.
5. The arguments in these writ petitions and Civil Appeals Nos. 3035-37 of 1981 were heard in part and all these matters were adjourned to March 23, 1982. Subsequent to March 23, 1982, probably in the light of the arguments advanced before us in these matters till that date the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 has been amended by the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act, 42 of 1982. Some of the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1960 also have been amended. The wholesale licence granted to M. Subbarama Reddy, the 3rd respondent in WP No. 6797 of 1981 for the whole of Madras city has also been cancelled. When these said writ petitions and civil appeals came up again before us on September 14, 1982, Mr K. Rajendra Chowdhary, learned counsel for the appellants in the aforesaid civil appeals in which also similar reliefs as in these writ petitions were prayed for, withdrew those civil appeals and they were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn on that day without costs. Then Dr Y.S Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the Government of Tamil Nadu submitted that by reasons of the said amendment of some of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and also the said Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1960 nothing survives in these writ petitions for consideration by this Court. This was not disputed by Mr F.S Nariman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions. He, however, submitted that Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Indian-made Foreign Spirits (Supply by Wholesale) Rules, 1981 confers the power to fix the number of wholesale depots for Indian-made foreign spirits in Tamil Nadu on the Commissioner of Prohibition subject to the approval of the Government and only one wholesale depot has been fixed for each of the districts in Tamil Nadu, and an opportunity should be given to the. petitioners in these writ petitions to make representation to the Government regarding the number of wholesale depots for Indian-made foreign spirits required in each of the districts. He also submitted that the notification calling for applications for the issue of licence for dealing with Indian-made foreign spirits may be issued within four weeks after representations are made by the writ petitioners to the Government. Dr Y.S Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the Government of Tamil Nadu had no objection to these submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. In these circumstances, we dismiss these writ petitions. While doing so we give liberty to the writ petitioners to make representations in writing to the Government of Tamil Nadu regarding the number of wholesale depots for Indian-made foreign spirits in each of the districts in Tamil Nadu including the Madras Corporation limits within two weeks from September 15, 1982. The Government of Tamil Nadu shall consider these representations, if any, without any necessity for giving an oral hearing to these petitioners. The notification calling for the issue of licences for wholesale dealers in Indian-made foreign spirits shall be issued within four weeks from October 1, 1982. It is open to the writ petitioners also to submit their applications for grant of licences to them and they shall be considered on merits according to law. We do not make any order as to costs. The Government of Tamil Nadu may consider the question of purchasing either by themselves or through any of their agents the stock of Indian-made foreign spirit which may be left with the writ petitioners after the fresh licences are granted on the new applications which may be invited for the purpose.
Alert