Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 – Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970 – rr. 122, 163 and 209 – Appellant sought to transfer his licensed liquor shop from one region to another – Respondent No. 3-the Deputy Commissioner of the region where appellant sought transfer, granted permission – Respondent No. 1 filed writ petition – High Court set aside the permission granted to the appellant – High Court held that the word/phrase/term ‘place’ in the Excise Act and Excise Rules had a restrictive meaning – It was further held that the order which permitted shifting of the wholesale liquor shop of the appellant had to be confined to a region and not to an entirely different region – On appeal, held : The Excise Act and The Excise Rules uses the expression ‘local area’ in contradistinction with the word ‘place’, whenever it was intended to confine the area in which the liquor shop was located – The expression ‘from one place to another’ is not restrictive, and does not curtail the power of the Licensing Authority to grant permission for shifting the licensed shop from one region to another in the Union Territory of Puducherry so long as the conditions stipulated by the Excise Act and Excise Rules, as also the conditions for grant of a license are complied with – The shifting should not result in the increase in number of liquor shops beyond the maximum number of licenses which may be fixed for a particular area u/r.122 of the Excise Rules – Further, the permission was granted to shift the premises subject to compliance with the conditions laid down with r.209 of the Excise Rules – In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner had imposed additional two conditions – All the conditions under the Excise Act and Rules were complied by the appellant – The permission granted for shifting the licensed shop was legal and valid.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The expression ‘from one place to another’ in Rule 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970 is not restrictive, and does not curtail the power of the Licensing Authority to grant permission for shifting the licensed shop from one region to another in the Union Territory of Puducherry so long as the conditions stipulated by the Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 and Excise Rules, as also the conditions for grant of a license are complied with. The shifting should not result in the increase in number of liquor shops beyond the maximum number of licenses which may be fixed for a particular area under Rule 122 of the Excise Rules. [Para 20] [393-G-H]
2. Given the peculiar demography of the Union Territory of Puducherry, which comprises of four unconnected regions, it would be contrary to the object and purpose of the Excise Act, if a restrictive meaning was to be given to Rule 209 of the Excise Rules. The Act must be read as a whole to ascertain the intent of the legislature. If the intention of the legislature was to restrict the shifting of a liquor shop to a region, locality, municipality, or commune, Rule 209 of the Excise Act would have expressly contained such a prohibition, which is absent. [Para 21] [394-A-B]
3. The Excise Act and the Excise Rules use the expression ‘local area’ in contra-distinction with the word ‘place’, whenever it is intended to confine the area in which the liquor shop is located. [Para 22] [394-C]
4. In the present case, the Licensing Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) vide Letter dated 07.06.2018 has granted permission to shift the F.L.1 Licensed premises of the Appellant from one region to another, subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in Rule 209 of the Excise Rules. The Deputy Commissioner (Excise) from where appellant sought transfer permitted shifting of the premises subject to two additional conditions viz.
(i) There shall be one and the same entrance and exit only;
(ii) The boundary of the building should be properly protected.
This Court was informed by the Appellant and the State that all conditions under the Excise Act and Rules were complied with. [Para 25] [395-A-C]
5. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 - the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), where appellant sought transfer vide letter dated 15.06.2018 granted permission to the Appellant to run the F.L.-1 business from the location designated. [Para 26] [395-D]
6. This Court finds no prohibition in the Excise Act or Rules for shifting the F.L.1 Licensed premises from one place to another. The permission dated 07.06.2018 for shifting the licensed shop from one region to another granted by Respondent No. 3 is legal and valid. [Para 27] [395-E]
State of Tamil Nadu v. Balu (2017) 2 SCC 281 – referred to.
K. Murali v. Commissioner (Excise)-cum-Secretary in W.P. (Civil) No. 39661/2002 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.