Liquor licence mandamus barred where the State retains exclusive privilege and no enforceable right to grant exists.

In liquor licensing matters, the State's exclusive privilege and the discretionary scheme under the Abkari Act and the 1975 Rules mean that no legal duty exists to grant a distillery licence. A writ of mandamus cannot compel the State to part with that privilege in the absence of a corresponding legal right. The Court also held that refusal of a fresh licence was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14, because the applicant had no entitlement to claim a licence as of right and earlier grants to others did not establish actionable discrimination. The challenge to the refusal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the State to grant a distillery licence under the liquor law framework; (ii) Whether the refusal to grant licence was invalid for want of fairness or discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the State to grant a distillery licence under the liquor law framework.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 14 of the Abkari Act and Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the 1975 Rules confers discretion on the Commissioner and the Government to consider licence applications, but not a legal duty to grant a licence. The trade in potable liquor is treated as an area of exclusive State privilege and not as a matter of fundamental right. A writ of mandamus lies only where a legal right and corresponding legal duty exist, and the Court cannot compel the State to part with its exclusive privilege by directing issuance of a licence.

Conclusion: The direction to grant a distillery licence could not be sustained and was against the State.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to grant licence was invalid for want of fairness or discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Although the State must act fairly and cannot behave arbitrarily when granting liquor privileges to selected applicants, the respondent had not established a legal entitlement to claim a licence as of right. The State had adopted a policy decision against fresh licences, and the application was considered in that policy context. The fact that some other applicants had earlier been granted licences did not create a right in the respondent to demand another licence, absent proof of legally actionable discrimination.

Conclusion: The refusal was not shown to be legally vulnerable on the ground of discrimination, and Article 14 did not justify a mandamus to grant the licence.

Final Conclusion: The judgment under challenge was set aside and the State's appeal succeeded, leaving no basis for a court-directed grant of the distillery licence.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of liquor, where the State holds exclusive privilege and the statute confers only discretionary power to consider licence applications, mandamus cannot be used to compel grant of a licence in the absence of a corresponding legal duty.

---