TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p admeasuring 500 sq. ft. in an approved and recognized commercial complex. (iii) Proposed vend should not be within 75 meters of : (a) major educational institutions; (b) religious places; and (c) hospitals with 50 beds and above. (iv) The grant of L-52 licence shall be subject to the acceptance of the application by the competent authority who may accept or reject any application without assigning any reasons. Further, the licensing authority was under no obligation to grant any licence for which application had been made. (v) The licence was to be subject to the general conditions in Rule 33 and special conditions in Rule 34 of the Delhi Liquor License Rules, 1976. Relevant clauses of the L-52 licence may also be noticed. Clause 12 provides for actual physical possession of covered shop admeasuring 500 sq. ft. in an approved commercial complex/area recognized by the local bodies such as DDA, MCD, NDMC, etc. No licence was to be issued for a liquor vend within 75 meters of : (a) major educational institutions (b) religious places (c) hospitals with fifty beds and above. 'Major educational institutions' were defined to mean "middle and higher secondary schools, college....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icy of the State. Resident Welfare Associations and elected representatives also lodged protests. The matter was referred to the Cabinet for a decision whether or not the State would continue with the said policy. On or about 9th March, 2005, a decision was taken that no fresh licence would be issued by the Department. Surprisingly despite the same, applications were processed on the purported ground that in the event, the State was to direct approval in regard to continuation of its liquor policy, the licences could be issued immediately thereafter. However, the matter was placed before the competent authority of the State, whereupon the following decision was taken : (i) "The exercise for grant of licence was stopped in the month of March, 2005" (ii) "Since the opening of shops is a matter of Govt. Policy, decided on a year to year basis, it has been decided to review the last year's policy and not consider granting any more L-52 Licences." (iii) "For the all above said retail vends, wholesale bonds and licensed premises of various categories, effective and efficient enforcement is required to ensure implementation of the provisions of the Excise Law and detection/ prevent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equirements therefor, before 16.9.2005. Letters Patent Appeals filed thereagainst have been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended: (i) The State acted illegally and without jurisdiction in rejecting the applications for grant of L-52 licences to the Appellants in so far as not only the cases of others had been considered even after 9th March, 2005 but licences had also been granted during the period 11.3.2005 and 28.4.2005. (ii) The State adopted a pick and choose method ignoring the fact that the licence was to be granted on first-cum-first-serve basis. (iii) The State itself having given the date of grant of licence stating that the licence would be issued on 10.1.2005, the Appellants derived an accrued right in relation thereto. (iv) The High Court having directed the State to consider the applications filed by the Appellants herein on the same terms and conditions, the State could not have ignored the same. The applicants had a legitimate expectation to obtain licences in view of the policy decision of the State and, thus, it could not have refused to grant such licences. (v) The State having adopted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration at the hands of the competent authority along with those who were similarly situated. So far as the case of Kuldeep Singh is concerned, his application was required to be considered afresh in view of the order passed by the Excise Commissioner. Insofar as the case of Sadaram Gupta is concerned, the same was required to be considered in terms of the interim order passed by the High Court. In the case of Surinder Katiyal although he had withdrawn his earlier application and filed a fresh application for grant of a licence at a different place, his contention for shifting was accepted by the Respondent as would appear from the letter dated 6.5.2005 wherein it was stated: "With reference to your letter dated 2.2.2005 and 8.2.2005 you are hereby informed that your request for shifting of the proposed liquor from UG-1,2,3, Road No. 44, Plot No. 27, Sagar Plaza II, Pitampura, Community Center, New Delhi to G-11-12, Vardhman Western Plaza, Behera Enclave, Paschin Vihar, Delhi - 63 has been accepted by the Competent Authority. You are therefore directed to submit the all requisite documents i.e. Commercial Proof, Rent Agreement, NOC for running liquor shop, ownership....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for grant of such licences have been specified, the mode and manner in which such applications were to be filed had also been specified. As noticed hereinbefore, even time frame therefor was fixed. It is, however, difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' is attracted in the instant case. Indisputably, the said doctrine is a source of procedural or substantive right. [See R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan 2001 Q.B. 213] But, however, the relevance of application of the said doctrine is as to whether the expectation was legitimate. Such legitimate expectation was also required to be determined keeping in view the larger public interest. Claimants' perceptions would not be relevant therefor. The State actions indisputably must be fair and reasonable. Non - arbitrariness on its part is a significant facet in the field of good governance. The discretion conferred upon the State yet again cannot be exercised whimsically or capriciously. But where a change in the policy decision is valid in law, any action taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sites were to be carried out and the contents thereof were required to be verified. For the said purpose, the applications were required to be strictly scrutinized. [See Ashok Lenka (supra)] Unless, therefore, an accrued or vested right had been derived by the Appellants, the policy decision could have been changed. What would be an acquired or accrued right in the present situation is the question. In Director of Public Works and Another v. HO PO Sang and Others [(1961) AC 901], the Privy Council considered the said question having regard to the repealing provisions of Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, 1947 as amended on 9th April, 1957. It was held that having regard to the repeal of Sections 3A to 3E, when applications remained pending, no accrued or vested right was derived stating: "In summary, the application of the second appellant for a rebuilding certificate conferred no right on him which was preserved after the repeal of sections 3A-E, but merely conferred hope or expectation that the Governor in Council would exercise his executive or ministerial discretion in his favour and the first appellant would thereafter issue a certificate. Similarly, the issue by the first ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s this, such a "settled expectation" or the so-called "vested right" cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the Building Rules and the resolution of the Corporation issued thereupon." In Union of India and Others v. Indian Charge Chrome and Another [(1999) 7 SCC 314], again this Court emphasized: "The application has to be decided in accordance with the law applicable on the date on which the authority granting the registration is called upon to apply its mind to the prayer for registration" In S.B. International Ltd. and Others v. Asstt. Director General of Foreign Trade and Others [(1996) 2 SCC 439], this Court repelled a contention that the authorities cannot take advantage of their own wrong, viz., delay in issuing the advance licence stating: "We have mentioned hereinbefore that issuance of these licences is not a formality nor a mere ministerial function but that it requires due verification and formation of satisfaction as to compliance with all the relevant provisions" In a case of this nature where the State has the exclusive privilege and the citizen has no fundamental right to carry on business in ....