Judicial review in liquor licence disputes is limited, and educated unemployed youth preference excludes students still pursuing studies.

Judicial review under Article 226 does not permit a High Court to reappraise evidence or determine comparative suitability of rival tenderers in liquor licence matters, because grant of such a licence is a regulated privilege and interference is confined to jurisdictional error, apparent error, or a perverse conclusion. The text also states that the preference for an "educated unemployed youth" under Rule 223(2) applies only to a person who has completed education and is actually unemployed, so a student still pursuing studies is outside that category. It further notes that the excise authority may rely on confidential local reports in assessing fitness and suitability for excise settlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could reappraise the evidence, adjudge the comparative suitability of rival tenderers, and issue a writ of mandamus directing grant of a liquor licence instead of confining itself to certiorari and remand. (ii) Whether a student still pursuing studies could be treated as an 'educated unemployed youth' under Rule 223(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, and whether the Board of Revenue could rely on the Deputy Commissioner's confidential report in assessing suitability for excise settlement.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could reappraise the evidence, adjudge the comparative suitability of rival tenderers, and issue a writ of mandamus directing grant of a liquor licence instead of confining itself to certiorari and remand.

Analysis: The grant of a liquor licence is a privilege regulated by the statute and rules, and the settling authority and appellate authority are entitled to examine both financial and personal suitability of rival tenderers. In judicial review, the High Court could interfere only where the Board acted without jurisdiction, committed an error apparent on the face of the record, or reached a conclusion that no reasonable authority could reach. It was not open to the High Court to substitute its own appraisal of facts for that of the Board, nor to direct grant of the licence in preference to another claimant when the proper course, if any infirmity was found, was to quash and remit for fresh decision according to law. The earlier remand order did not prohibit reliance on the Deputy Commissioner's report, and the Board was entitled to act on such confidential material in the absence of any right to disclosure in proceedings concerning a privilege.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the permissible limits of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and was not justified in directing grant of the licence by mandamus.

Issue (ii): Whether a student still pursuing studies could be treated as an 'educated unemployed youth' under Rule 223(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, and whether the Board of Revenue could rely on the Deputy Commissioner's confidential report in assessing suitability for excise settlement.

Analysis: The expression 'educated unemployed youth' denotes a person who has completed education and is without employment. A person who is still pursuing studies cannot be brought within that description. The preference under Rule 223(2) operates only where competing tenderers are otherwise equally suitable, and it does not override the authority's right to assess general fitness, integrity, and practical suitability for running a major excise shop. The Board was also entitled to consider the Deputy Commissioner's confidential report, since the officer is expected to have local knowledge and secret sources of information, and the matter concerned a licence that is a privilege rather than an enforceable right. The report therefore could validly be used in the evaluation of suitability.

Conclusion: A student still undergoing studies is not an 'educated unemployed youth' within Rule 223(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, and the Board could rely on the confidential report for assessing suitability.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unsustainable, the Board's settlement in favour of the appellants was restored, and the matter was left to be dealt with further in accordance with law by the High Court on the pending writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review under Article 226 does not permit the High Court to reweigh evidence or determine comparative suitability in matters of statutory privilege, and a preference clause for educated unemployed youth applies only to persons who have completed education and are actually unemployed.

---