Liquor trade is protected business, but renewal may be refused on bona fide locality-suitability grounds and public interest restrictions.

Dealing in liquor is treated as a business within Article 19(1)(g), so a citizen may carry on that trade, but the State may impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6). The refusal to renew liquor licences was upheld on the facts because the authorities made a bona fide enquiry and found the localities unsuitable for liquor business; that factual finding was not disturbed. The challenge based on arbitrariness, unreasonableness, natural justice, and the cited statutory provision failed, as cancellation of an existing licence and refusal of a fresh licence were treated as different matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dealing in liquor is a trade or business protected by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). (ii) Whether refusal to renew liquor licences on the ground of unsuitable locality and complaints was arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether dealing in liquor is a trade or business protected by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).

Analysis: The right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) extends to business in liquor. The nature of the commodity does not take it outside the concept of trade or business. At the same time, Article 19(6) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public, including regulation or prohibition of liquor trade. Earlier decisions relied upon by the respondents were held not to deny the existence of the fundamental right, but only to uphold regulatory restrictions on it.

Conclusion: Dealing in liquor is business, and a citizen has a right to carry on that business, but the State may impose reasonable restrictions in public interest.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal to renew liquor licences on the ground of unsuitable locality and complaints was arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of natural justice.

Analysis: The challenge to the refusal of renewal was examined on the factual material and correspondence placed before the authorities and the High Court. The finding was that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner made a bona fide enquiry and concluded that the localities were not suitable for liquor business. The Court declined to interfere with that finding of fact. The contention based on Section 22 was rejected because cancellation of an existing licence and refusal to issue a fresh licence were treated as different matters. The plea of mala fides was not entertained because it had not been pressed below.

Conclusion: The refusal to renew the licences was not shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the orders refusing renewal of the liquor licences were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Liquor trade is a business protected by Article 19(1)(g), but the State may regulate or restrict it by a law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public, and a bona fide administrative refusal based on locality suitability is not arbitrary.

---