Pending liquor licence applications are governed by the law in force at final decision, including later amendments.
An FL-11 licence application falls to be decided by reference to the law in force on the date of the competent authority's final decision, not the date of an Excise Commissioner's recommendation. A subordinate recommendation does not crystallise entitlement or conclude the processing of the application. Where the application remains pending when a rule is amended, the amended Foreign Liquor Rules apply, including the 200-metre restriction introduced during pendency. The Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court's judgments and remanded the writ petition for fresh consideration on the remaining issues.
Issues: (i) Whether an application for FL-11 licence had to be considered with reference to the law in force on the date of the Excise Commissioner's recommendation or on the date of the final decision by the competent authority; (ii) Whether the application could be decided under the unamended Foreign Liquor Rules when the rules were amended while the application was still pending consideration.
Issue (i): Whether an application for FL-11 licence had to be considered with reference to the law in force on the date of the Excise Commissioner's recommendation or on the date of the final decision by the competent authority.
Analysis: The relevant date was held to be the date on which the competent authority takes the formal final decision, not the date of a subordinate recommendation. The processing of the licence application began with the application itself and continued until the Government's final decision. A recommendation by the Excise Commissioner, though important, did not conclude the matter or crystallise entitlement.
Conclusion: The governing date is the date of final consideration and decision by the competent authority, not the date of recommendation.
Issue (ii): Whether the application could be decided under the unamended Foreign Liquor Rules when the rules were amended while the application was still pending consideration.
Analysis: Since the application remained pending when the amendment introducing the 200-metre restriction came into force, the authority was entitled to apply the amended rule. The earlier view of the High Court that the pre-amendment rule governed was found unsustainable on the facts of the case. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the High Court on the remaining issues.
Conclusion: The amended Foreign Liquor Rules applied to the pending application.
Final Conclusion: The judgments of the High Court were set aside and the writ petition was remanded for fresh consideration, with the appeal being allowed only in part.
Ratio Decidendi: A licence application must be decided according to the law in force when the competent authority finally determines it, and not by reference to an earlier recommendation; if the application is still pending when the rule is amended, the amended rule governs.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
