Writ jurisdiction cannot rewrite a liquor licence bargain or grant remission absent clear illegality or enforceable right.

The Supreme Court of India held that the opening of the country liquor vend at Gulwati was not illegal, as the Excise Department acted within the excise framework and the record did not displace the presumption that official acts are regularly performed. It further held that the High Court could not grant remission of licence fee in writ jurisdiction by treating the claim as damages, because the licensee had entered the auction and incurred a binding contractual liability. In the absence of a clear illegality or enforceable legal right, writ relief could not be used to rewrite the bargain or avoid voluntarily assumed obligations, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the opening of the country liquor vend at Gulwati was illegal for want of prior sanction and non-compliance with the Punjab Intoxicants License and Sale Orders, 1956. (ii) Whether the High Court could grant remission of licence fee in writ jurisdiction by treating the matter as if damages were due.

Issue (i): Whether the opening of the country liquor vend at Gulwati was illegal for want of prior sanction and non-compliance with the Punjab Intoxicants License and Sale Orders, 1956.

Analysis: The material showed that the Excise Department had acted under the authority available in the excise framework and that the Financial Commissioner's powers could be exercised subject to Government control. The Court held that the High Court proceeded on an incomplete view of the record and overlooked the presumption that official acts are regularly performed. On the facts, the opening of the vend at Gulwati could not be treated as contrary to law.

Conclusion: The opening of the country liquor vend at Gulwati was not held to be illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could grant remission of licence fee in writ jurisdiction by treating the matter as if damages were due.

Analysis: The respondent had participated in the auction and incurred a binding liability under the licence. Writ jurisdiction is not intended to assist a licensee in avoiding voluntarily incurred obligations or to permit the Court to rewrite the bargain between the parties. Since no legal basis for damages or contractual reworking was established, the relief granted by the High Court could not stand.

Conclusion: The remission of licence fee granted by the High Court was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's judgment was set aside and the writ petition failed, leaving the licence liability intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A licensee who enters an auction and accepts the licence cannot use writ jurisdiction to evade the contractual burden or secure a judicially fashioned remission unless a clear illegality or enforceable legal right is established.

---