Writ maintainability and liquor licence rejection turn on independent enquiry into local objections under excise rules

Availability of an alternative appellate remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction; maintainability depends on the facts, and the writ was entertained where no timely objection was pressed after admission and exchange of affidavits. In foreign liquor licence matters, rejection cannot rest on local opposition alone. The governing excise rules required the Collector to conduct an independent enquiry into the genuineness of objections, the lawfulness of the site, local demand, and whether objections were mala fide or motivated by ulterior considerations. Because the impugned rejection showed no such application of mind, it was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was not entertainable because an alternative appellate remedy was available under the excise . (ii) Whether the rejection of the application for a foreign liquor licence was vitiated for failure to conduct the enquiry required by the governing excise rules and for not considering the objections on their merits.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was not entertainable because an alternative appellate remedy was available under the excise law.

Analysis: Availability of an alternative remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction. The question is one of entertainability, to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition had already been admitted and affidavits exchanged without any contemporaneous objection being pressed. In those circumstances, relegation to the appellate forum was not considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was overruled and the writ petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the application for a foreign liquor licence was vitiated for failure to conduct the enquiry required by the governing excise rules and for not considering the objections on their merits.

Analysis: The order of rejection showed reliance on local opposition without any real enquiry into the genuineness, sufficiency, or possible ulterior motive behind the objections. The statutory scheme under Rule 62 and Rule 9 required the Collector to examine the lawfulness of the site, ascertain local demand, and scrutinise whether the objections were genuine and free from malice or ulterior motive. The impugned order did not reflect discharge of that duty. The Collector was found to have acted without applying an independent mind to the materials and without following the procedure contemplated by the rules.

Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a fresh enquiry and reconsideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The applicant succeeded in securing judicial interference against the impugned rejection, but the entitlement to licence was left to be reconsidered afresh after compliance with the prescribed excise procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme requires enquiry into the genuineness of local objections and other relevant factors before grant or refusal of a licence, rejection based merely on untested public opposition without independent application of mind is unlawful and liable to be set aside.

---