Locus standi and lawful licence resettlement: Supreme Court rejects a speculative revenue-loss challenge to liquor shop allotment.

A writ challenge to resettlement of a foreign liquor shop failed for lack of locus standi because the petitioner had not participated in the fresh allotment process and showed no mala fides, favouritism, nepotism, or other enforceable right. Interference with a valid licence grant was also unjustified where the original licensee's revenue shortfall was being recovered under the statutory scheme and the stay rested only on a speculative claim of higher revenue. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim restraint, restored the licence and business operations, and dismissed the writ petition with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging resettlement of the foreign liquor shop was maintainable in the absence of locus standi. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in staying the resettlement and preventing the appellant from operating the licence on the ground of alleged loss of revenue.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging resettlement of the foreign liquor shop was maintainable in the absence of locus standi.

Analysis: The challenge was brought by a person who had not participated in the resettlement process. The original allottee had surrendered the licence and the shop was resettled for the remaining period after following the prescribed procedure. In the absence of any allegation of mala fides, favouritism, or nepotism, and where the petitioner was not a participant in the fresh allotment process, no enforceable right was shown to question the grant.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the objection based on locus standi was rightly accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in staying the resettlement and preventing the appellant from operating the licence on the ground of alleged loss of revenue.

Analysis: The record showed that the shortfall against the annual revenue value was being recovered from the original licensee, and recovery proceedings had already been initiated. The appellant had been accepted as the highest bidder for the remaining period and had complied with the licence conditions. Interference with a valid licence granted in accordance with the rules, merely on a speculative claim of higher revenue and without any actual revenue loss, was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The interim restraint could not be sustained and the appellant was entitled to continue the business under the valid resettlement.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the High Court were set aside, the writ petition stood dismissed, and the appellant's licence and business operations were restored with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who did not participate in the resettlement process cannot challenge a valid licence grant in the absence of malafides or a legally protectable interest, and courts should not interfere with a lawful allotment on a speculative allegation of revenue loss when the loss is otherwise being recovered under the governing statutory scheme.

---