Excise policy change upheld where State reserved discretion, defeating promissory estoppel and arbitrariness claims.

The State retained power to change excise policy despite an earlier liquor settlement arrangement, because the grant and renewal framework reserved that discretion and no enforceable promise barred revision. A later auction-cum-tender policy was upheld as a genuine public-interest change aimed at avoiding monopoly and protecting revenue, so promissory estoppel and the Article 14 arbitrariness challenge failed. Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 did not restrict such a policy shift. The challenge to the new policy was rejected, and the licensees were held entitled to return of the National Saving Certificates furnished as security.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State was bound by the earlier liquor settlement policy so as to prevent the later auction-cum-tender policy, and whether the challenge based on promissory estoppel, Article 14, and Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 could succeed.

Analysis: The earlier grant and renewal arrangement itself reserved the State's power to change policy, and the right to deal in excisable articles remained with the State. The later auction-cum-tender method was a genuine change of policy made in public interest to avoid monopolistic tendency and to protect revenue. No enforceable promise or detrimental alteration of position was shown, so promissory estoppel did not apply. Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 had no application to a policy change of this nature, and the challenge on the ground of arbitrariness also failed.

Conclusion: The challenge to the new excise policy was rejected and the appeal failed, though the licensees were held entitled to return of the National Saving Certificates furnished as security.

---