2017 (12) TMI 335 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds delayed renewal apps with good reasons & fee, dismisses writ appeals. Commissioner directed to comply with law.

The State of Tamil Nadu, The Collector, Kancheepuram District, The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Versus Hotel Mount Heera, The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.

The State of Tamil Nadu, The Collector, Kancheepuram District, The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) ... Issues Involved:1. Correctness of the orders rejecting applications for renewal of FL.3 licenses for the year 2015-16.2. Interpretation of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence & Permit) Rules, 1981.3. Authority of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to condone delays in renewal applications.4. Validity of applications submitted after the expiry of the license period.Detailed Analysis:1. Correctness of the Orders Rejecting Applications for Renewal of FL.3 Licenses for the Year 2015-16:The court examined the rejection of renewal applications based on the delay in submission. The writ court emphasized that 'rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties' and that delays should only invalidate applications if they are due to malafide reasons or unexplained satisfactorily. The court found no malafide intention in the petitioners' delayed applications and noted that the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981 do not set a strict outer time limit for renewal applications, unlike other tax statutes.2. Interpretation of Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence & Permit) Rules, 1981:The court interpreted Rule 21, which requires a license holder to apply for renewal at least one month before the expiry. However, the rule also allows the licensing authority to admit delayed applications if there are 'good and sufficient reasons' and upon payment of an additional fee. The court referenced multiple legal precedents to assert that a proviso should be read in conjunction with the main enactment to understand its full scope and intention.3. Authority of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to Condon Delays in Renewal Applications:The court highlighted that the Commissioner has the authority to condone delays in renewal applications, provided the delay is justified with good and sufficient reasons and an additional fee is paid. The court noted that there was no specific outer limit mentioned in the existing rule that prohibits considering applications filed after the expiry of the license.4. Validity of Applications Submitted After the Expiry of the License Period:The court addressed the submissions by the government advocate that applications for renewal must be made within 30 days before the expiry of the license and that no application should be entertained after the license expires. The court, however, pointed out that the existing rule allows for the consideration of delayed applications, reinforcing this with a letter from the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise seeking an amendment to Rule 21 to explicitly state that applications received after 31st March will not be considered. This proposed amendment indicates that the current rule does allow for some flexibility in considering delayed applications.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming that the existing rule permits the consideration of delayed renewal applications if justified with good reasons and an additional fee. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise was directed to process the renewal applications in accordance with the law, as directed by the writ court. The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in their entirety and the authority of administrative bodies to exercise discretion within the framework of the law.