Liquor licence applications must be decided under the law in force when considered; amended proviso barring fresh licences was upheld.
Where no vested right to a liquor licence exists, an application for FL-3 licence must be decided under the Rules and policy in force on the date the authority considers the request, not the date of application; a pending application creates no accrued right, and the contrary High Court direction was unsustainable. The amendment to Rule 13(3) inserting a new proviso was also upheld because it did not annul the main rule or disturb existing licences and renewals, but temporarily barred fresh licences in support of State excise policy. The challenge to the amended proviso therefore failed.
Issues: (i) Whether an application for grant of FL-3 licence was to be considered with reference to the Rules as they stood on the date of application or on the date of consideration; (ii) Whether the amendment to Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules substituting the last proviso was valid.
Issue (i): Whether an application for grant of FL-3 licence was to be considered with reference to the Rules as they stood on the date of application or on the date of consideration.
Analysis: The governing principle is that where no vested right to grant of licence exists, the authority must decide the application on the law and policy in force when it applies its mind to the request. In liquor matters, the State has exclusive privilege, the applicant has no fundamental right to trade in liquor, and processing of applications may require scrutiny, inspection and assessment of public interest. A mere pending application or expectation of favourable consideration does not crystallize into a vested or accrued right. The Court also held that the earlier rejection of the application did not alter the position, because the operative order for decision was the one made after the amended rule came into force.
Conclusion: The application had to be considered under the Rules in force on the date of consideration, not on the date of application, and the High Court's contrary direction could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules substituting the last proviso was valid.
Analysis: The amended proviso did not annul the main rule or disturb existing licences and renewals; it only barred fresh licences for the time being in furtherance of State policy. A proviso may legitimately qualify, suspend, or temporarily control the operation of the main provision if its terms and the policy objective support that construction. The amendment was treated as an implementation of the State's excise policy and not as an impermissible destruction of the rule-making scheme.
Conclusion: The amendment was valid, and the challenge to the proviso failed.
Final Conclusion: The State succeeded on the controlling question of law regarding the applicable date for consideration of licence applications, while the challenge to the amended proviso was rejected; the applicants did not secure relief against refusal of fresh FL-3 licences under the amended regime.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a vested right to a liquor licence, an application must be decided according to the law in force on the date of consideration, and a proviso inserted to give effect to a valid policy decision may temporarily bar fresh licences without invalidating the parent rule.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
