Order
We have heard learned Senior Counsel at length. We do not agree with the contention that Rule 6(39) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules is bad in law. The said Rule was in existence at the time when the licence was granted to the petitioners and the High Court has rightly observed that the petitioners cannot be allowed to impugn the same. In any event, we do not find any infirmity in the said Rule which states that the licensee shall be bound by all the rules which have been passed under the Abkari Act and which may hereafter be made under the Act or in any law relating to abkari revenue which may hereafter be made. We do not agree with the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the decision of this Court in Food Corpn. of India v. State of Haryana (2000) 3 SCC 495 supports his contention. In that case this Court had held that the law declared by the High Court had been accepted by the State of Haryana and, therefore, it could not impose any sales tax and therefore, could not consequently demand any interest. In the present case, however, even though some of the licensees had succeeded before the High Court, it is the State which came up before this Court and the decision of the High Court was reversed. Unlike the Food Corpn. of India case (2000) 3 SCC 495 the State did not accept the finding of the High Court and therefore the decision in Food Corpn. of India case (2000) 3 SCC 495 will be of no assistance to the petitioners. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
Court Masters