Excise relocation rules upheld as plain-text authority allowed undisposed shop transfers, despite a competence defect in notification issuance.

Amended excise rules were read to expressly permit relocation of undisposed A-4 shops, including beyond the original area or district, so long as policy limits were respected, including slab restrictions. The relocation notifications were upheld as a rational revenue-augmentation measure applied to a distinct class of shops and were found not to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or barred by Article 14, natural justice, or legitimate expectation. Although Rule 5(1) contemplated issue of the notification by the licensing authority and the District Collectors were not the competent authority, the Court declined writ relief in equity, noting the petitioners' prior benefit and the wider public interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the amended Rule 4 empowered relocation of undisposed A-4 shops and permitted such relocation beyond the original area or district; (ii) whether the impugned relocation notifications were arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14, or contrary to natural justice and legitimate expectation; (iii) whether the District Collectors were competent to issue the notifications under Rule 5(1).

Issue (i): whether the amended Rule 4 empowered relocation of undisposed A-4 shops and permitted such relocation beyond the original area or district.

Analysis: The amended Rule 4 expressly conferred power on the Commissioner to relocate undisposed shops and the Court read the provision according to its plain language. The insertion could not be rendered redundant by restricting relocation only within the same area or district, since that would require adding words not found in the Rule. The Court also held that the factors mentioned in Rule 4 were relevant at the stage of fixation, but the record showed that they were in fact considered again before relocation. The power was not confined by district, zone, or multizone boundaries, though relocation remained subject to the Excise Policy limits, including the restriction against moving shops from a higher licence fee slab to a lower slab.

Conclusion: The amended Rule 4 did empower relocation of undisposed shops, including to areas outside the original locality or district, subject to the policy restrictions.

Issue (ii): whether the impugned relocation notifications were arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14, or contrary to natural justice and legitimate expectation.

Analysis: The Court held that liquor trade is not a fundamental right and is subject to regulation as a privilege. The relocation policy was aimed at augmenting revenue and was applied only to a distinct class of shops that had recorded turnover of 14 times or more, which satisfied the test of reasonable classification. The Court found no material to show hostility, mala fides, or irrationality, and held that the decision was informed by reason rather than whim. It further held that subordinate legislative action was not subject to natural justice in the same manner as administrative action, and that no enforceable legitimate expectation arose against a policy change embodied in the amended Rules and the Excise Policy.

Conclusion: The impugned notifications were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and neither natural justice nor legitimate expectation barred the relocation exercise.

Issue (iii): whether the District Collectors were competent to issue the notifications under Rule 5(1).

Analysis: Rule 5(1) required the notification inviting applications to be issued by the licensing authority, namely the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, while the District Collector was only the selection authority under the scheme of the Rules. The impugned notifications were therefore not issued by the competent authority. However, the petitioners themselves had benefited from similar earlier notifications, and the Court declined discretionary relief under Article 226 because setting aside the notifications would defeat the larger public interest and confer an unfair advantage.

Conclusion: The District Collectors were not the authority contemplated by Rule 5(1), but the petitions were still not fit for interference in exercise of writ discretion.

Final Conclusion: The amended excise framework lawfully permitted relocation of undisposed A-4 shops for revenue augmentation, and the challenge to the relocation exercise failed on merits and in equity.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amended excise rule expressly authorises relocation of undisposed shops, the provision must be given its plain effect, and relocation may be sustained if it is rational, policy-compliant, and aimed at legitimate revenue augmentation without hostile discrimination.

---