TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act") and the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 (for brevity, "the Rules") as Excise department has no power/authority to add, delete or cancel any kind of category of licence in the Excise policy without amending the relevant Acts and the Rules where there is a chart of liquor licences. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to bring clear cut transparency in the procedure for allotment of L-1A licence by holding draw of lots. Direction has also been sought to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 17.2.2016, Annexure P.2 submitted by the petitioner and to stay operation of issuance of L-1A licence till the pendency of the present writ petition. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No.5593 of 2016. The petitioner is engaged in the business of liquor trade for the past so many years in the State of Punjab. In the month of March 2016, the State of Punjab announced its Excise policy for the year 2016-17 under the Act and the Rules. In the previous excise policy for the last year, there were different classes of licences mentioned in the Rules. The controversy arose when the State Government announ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their own economic interest. The petitioner avers that there is no power with the excise department to add or cancel any classification of the licensees in the excise policy without amending the Act and the Rules. Further, it is also not specified who is the competent authority to grant the L-1A licence and who is responsible to legally monitor or scrutinize the application for grant of L- 1A licence. No criteria has been prescribed for the manufacturer to give letter of consent if more than one person shows interest for its L-1A licence. The projected number of IMFL L-1A licensees in the State of Punjab is fixed at three and there will be just two L-1A liquor licence for Beer in the entire State of Punjab which would lead to monopolization of liquor trade in the State of Punjab. Still further, the term Arms Length Distance for grant of L-1A licence only to the persons who are in any way not related to the manufacturing company is a very subjective term. The petitioner also sent a legal notice cum representation dated 17.3.2016, Annexure P.2 to the respondents but no reply has been received from the department. Hence the instant writ petition. 4. A written statement has been file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les, 1956 were amended incorporating Licence 1-A in modified form on 23.3.2016? ii) Whether the sub clause (ii) of Clause 2.14 of the Excise Policy 2016-17 is justified and sustainable in law or not? 9. No debate is required on Issue No.1 as the matter is no longer res integra. The unanimous view of five Constitution Bench decisions in State of Bombay and another vs. F.N.Baisana, (1951) 2 SCR 682, Cooverjee B.Bharucha vs. Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer and others, AIR 1954 SC 220, State of Assam vs. N.Kidwai, Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Shillong, (1957) 1 SCR 295, Nagendra Nath Bora and another vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others, (1958) 1 SCR 1240 and Amar Chandra Chakraborty vs. Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura and others, (1973) 1 SCR 533, emphasized that the trades which were injurious to health and welfare of the public could be restricted by the State and that elimination and exclusion from the business was inherent in the nature of liquor business as it was treated as a class by themselves by all civilized societies. The plea that citizen either had a natural or fundamental right to carry on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....long with the said qualifications. Even the rights guaranteed under the Constitutions of the other civilized countries are not absolute but are read subject to the implied limitations on them. Those implied limitations are made explicit by clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of our Constitution. (b) The right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business does not extend to practising a profession or carrying on an occupation, trade or business which is inherently vicious and pernicious, and is condemned by all civilised societies. It does not entitle citizens to carry on trade or business in activities which are immoral and criminal and in articles or goods which are obnoxious and injurious to health, safety and welfare of the general public, i.e., res extra commercium, (outside commerce). There cannot be business in crime. (c) Potable liquor as a beverage is an intoxicating and depressant drink which is dangerous and injurious to health and is, therefore, an article which is res extra commerce being inherently harmful. A citizen has, therefore, no fundamental right to do trade or business in liquor. Hence the trade or business in liquor can be complete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notwithstanding that it is an intoxicating drink and Article 47 enjoins it to prohibit its consumption. When the State carries on such business, it does so to restrict and regulate production, supply and consumption of liquor which is also an aspect of reasonable restriction in the interest of general public. The State cannot on that account be said to be carrying on an illegitimate business. (j) The mere fact that the State levies taxes or fees on the production, sale and income derived from potable liquor whether the production, sale or income is legitimate or illegitimate, does not make the State a party to the said activities. The power of the State to raise revenue by levying taxes and fees should not be confused with the power of the State to prohibit or regulate the trade or business in question. The State exercises its two different powers on such occasions. Hence the mere fact that the State levies taxes and fees on trade or business in liquor or income derived from it, does not make the right to carry on trade or business in liquor a fundamental right, or even a legal right when such trade or business is completely prohibited. (k) The State cannot prohibit trade or busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intoxicating drinks and all drugs which are injurious to health. For the same reason, the Bench held, the State can treat a monopoly either in itself or in an agency created by it for the manufacture, possession, sale and distribution of liquor as a beverage. The holding is emphatic and unambiguous. Yet an argument is sought to be built upon certain words occurring in clauses (e) and (f) of the summary contained in para 60 of the decision. In these clauses, it was observed that creation of a monopoly in the State to deal in intoxicating liquors and the power to impose restrictions, limitations and even prohibition thereon can be imposed both under clause (6) of Article 19 or even otherwise. Seizing upon these observations, Shri Ganguly argued that this decision implicitly recognises that business in liquor is a fundamental right under Article 19(l)(g). If it were not so, asked the learned counsel, reference to Article 19(6) has no meaning. We do not think that any such argument can be built upon the said observations. In clause (e), the Bench held, a monopoly in the State or its agency can be created "under Article 19(6) or even otherwise". Similarly, in clause (f), while speaking ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wala, AIR 1957 SC 699, State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, AIR 1972 SC 1816 and Nashirwar etc. vs. State of M.P. and others, AIR 1975 SC 360 and has held that there is no fundamental right to do the business or deal in intoxicants. 26. Another constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. And Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, (1995)1 SCC 574 after taking note of all previous decisions on the nature of right to deal in business of liquor summarized the law on the subject as follows: "60. We may now summarise the law on the subject as culled from the aforesaid decisions. (a) The rights protected by Article 19(1) are not absolute but qualified. The qualifications are stated in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. The fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 19(1) (a) to (g) are therefore, to be read along with the said qualifications. Even the rights guaranteed under the Constitutions of the other civilized countries are not absolute but are read subject to the implied limitations on them. Those implied limitations are made explicit by clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of our Constitution. (b) The right to practice any profession or to carry on any o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. No one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. It cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will. It must comply with the equality clause while granting the exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor. It is, therefore, not possible to uphold the contention of the State Government and Respondents 5 to 11 that Article 14 can have no application in a case where the licence to manufacture or sell liquor is being granted by the State Government. The State cannot ride roughshod over the requirement of that article." In In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others [(1995) 1 SCC 574], a Constitution Bench of this Court upon referring to a large number of decisions summed up its findings in the following terms: "60.(g) When the State permits trade or business in the potable liquor with or without limitation, the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e (1972) 3 SCR 784 = (AIR 1972 SC 1816) and Nashirwar's case (AIR 1975 SC 360). There is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants. The State, under its regulatory powers, has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifestations, these rights are vested in the state and indeed without such vesting these can be no effective regulation of various forms of activities in relation to intoxicants...." In State of MP and others etc. v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and others etc, AIR 1987 SC 251, in paras 32 and 33, it was observed:- "32..Now, it is true and it is well settled by several decisions of this court including the decision in Har Shanker v. Deputy Excise & Taxation Commr. (1975) 3 SCR 254 : (AIR 1975 SC 1121) that there is no fundamental right in a citizen to carry on trade or business in liquor. The State under its regulatory power has the power to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants its manufacturer, storage, export, import, sale and possession. No one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmonition given by Frankfurter, J. in Morey v. Doud, (1957) 354 US 457: "In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. The legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. The courts have only the power to destroy, not to reconstruct. When these are added to the complexity of economic regulation, the uncertainty, the liability to error, the bewildering conflict of the experts, and the number of times the judges have been overruled by events self limitation can be seen to be the path to judicial wisdom and institutional prestige and stability." What we said in that case in regard to legislation relating to economic matters must apply equally in regard to executive action in the field of economic activities, though the executive decision may not be placed on as high a pedestal as legislative judgment in so far as judicial deference is concerned. We must not forget that in complex economic matters every decision is necessarily empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call `trial and error method' and, therefore, its validity cannot be tested o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iterated by majority of Judges in State of Punjab and another v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. And another, (2004) 11 SCC 26. It was observed in para 113:- "In my opinion, Articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution are not attracted to the present case as the imposition of import fee does not, in any way, restrict trade, commerce and intercourse among the States. In my opinion, the permissive privilege to deal in liquor is not a 'right' at all. The levy charged for parting with that privilege is neither a tax nor a fee. It is simply a levy for the act of granting permission or for the exercise of power to part with the privilege. In this context, we can usefully refer to Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr.(AIR 1975 SC 1121 and Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1975 (2) SCC 633). As noticed earlier, dealing in liquor is neither a right nor is the levy a tax or a fee. Articles 301-304 will be rendered inapplicable at the threshold to the activity in question. Further, there is not even a single judgment which upholds the applicability of Articles 301-304 to the liquor trade. On the contrary, numerous judgments expressly hold these articles to be inapplicable to tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olicy in the impugned notification." In Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India and others, AIR 1999 SC 2979, it was observed:- "43. Government decisions regarding award of contracts are also open to judicial review and if the decisionmaking process is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality and irrationality, then the Court can strike down the decision- making process as also the award of contract based on such decision. This was so laid down by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11 : (1994 AIR SCW 3344). Initially the Supreme Court was of the opinion that while the decision-making process for award of a contract would be amenable to judicial review under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution, a breach of a contractual obligation arising out of a contract already executed would not be so enforceable under such jurisdiction and the remedy in such cases would lie by way of a civil suit for damages. (See: Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, (1977) 3 SC 457: (1977) 3 SCR 249: AIR 1977 SC 1496). But the Court changed its opinion in subsequent decisions and held that even arbitrary and unreasonable dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....repair inspection, supervision, management and control of any place for the manufacture, supply, storage or sale of such article and the fitting, implements, apparatus and register to be maintained therein ; (ii) the cultivation of the hemp plant and the collection of spontaneous growth of such plant and the preparation of any intoxicating drug. (iii) the tapping of drawing of tari from any tari producing tree. (b) regulating the bottling of liquor for purposes of sale ; (c) regulating the deposit of any intoxicant in a warehouse and the removal of any intoxicant from any warehouse or from any distillery or brewery. (d) prescribing the scale of fees or the manner of fixing the fees payable in respect of any licence, permit or pass or in respect of the storing of any intoxicant; (e) regulating the time, place and manner of payment of any duty or fee; (f) prescribing the authority by, the restrictions under, and the conditions on, which any licence, permit or pass may be granted including provision for the following matters :- (i) the prohibition of the admixture with any intoxicant of any substance deemed to be noxious or objectionable; (ii) the regulation or prohibitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been specified. The category of licences that may be granted on fixed fee by inviting applications for a licencing unit has been prescribed under Rule 35 of the Rules. Rule 36 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for the grant of licences. Special conditions for grant of licences have been enumerated in Rule 38 of the Rules. The relevant portion of these rules is quoted below:- "Rule 24. The fees payable in respect of licences under these rules are of the following kind:- a) fixed fee; b) assessed fees; and c) fees fixed by auction; and d) tender fee; Rule 25: (1) The amount of fixed fee and security in respect of different kinds of licenses, granted under these rules, shall be as follows:- Sr.No. Kind of licence Rate of annual licence fee (Rs.) Rate of security (Rs.) 1. L-1 (Grant and renewal) 30,00,000 15000 2. L-1A Sale upto 50000 cases 12,00,000 15000 Sale from 500001 to 75000 cases 18,00,000 15000 Sale from 75001 to 100000 cases 1,00,00,000 15000 L-1A dealing exclusively BIO brands L-1A (i) sale upto 1000 cases 2,00,000 15000 (ii) sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent shall be deposited in Development Fund constituted under the Punjab Development Fund Act, 2014 (Punjab Act No. 1 of 2015). The application forms shall be serially numbered at three places, i.e. in the application form, in the slip of draw of lots and on the receipt, issued to the applicant." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rule 38 "The licences shown in this rule are granted subject to the special conditions noted under each in addition to the conditions laid down in Rule 37. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "(e) The licensee shall purchase Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Beer, Wine and Ready to Drink Beverages (Indian and Imported) from L-1A licensee." "(1-A) (i) A license in Form L-1A(IMFL) for the wholesale vend of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (except Beer), Wine and Ready to drink beverages to the L-1 licensee only, authorized to purchase liquor from distilleries, bottling plants and Wineries (Manufacturing units of IMFL, Wine and RTD) from both within and outside the State: (a) The licensee shall purchase Indian Made Foreign Liquor (except Beer), Wine and Ready to drink beverages from distilleries, bottling plants and Wineries (Manufacturing units of IMFL, Wine and RTD) from both with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P.A.1/1914/5.59/Amd.(127)/2016 dated 23.3.2016 has been issued assigning new terminology to licence L-1A which is in the following terms:- L-1A (IMFL) Whole sale vend of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (except Beer), Wine and Ready to Drink beverages to the L-1 licensee only, authorized to purchase liquor from distilleries, bottling plants and wineries (manufacturing units of IMFL, Wine and RTD) from both, within and outside the State. Fixed fee Collector with the prior approval of Excise commissioner. Collector. L-1A(BIO) Wholesale vend of imported Foreign Liquor (BIO Brands) to the L-1 licensee and L-1BV licensees only authorized to purchase imported foreign liquor (BIO Brand) from custom bond both, within and outside the State. Fixed fee Collector with the prior approval of Excise Commissioner. Collector. L-1A (Beer) Wholesale vend of Beer, to L-1 licensee only, authorized to purchase Beer from breweries both, within and outside the State. Fixed fee Collector with the prior approval of Excise Commissioner Collector. 22. The change/amendment which has been brought about by virtue of it, is that now L-1A licencee shall purchase the liquor from the breweries/dist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court held that while considering the applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution in case pertaining to trade or business in liquor, the Court would be slow to interfere with the policy laid down by the State Government for grant of licence for manufacture and sale of liquor. More over, grant of licence for manufacture and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter of economic policy where the Court would hesitate to intervene and strike down what the Government has done unless it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide. It was fur ther observed that the Court must while adjudging the Constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to economic matter grant a certain measure of freedom or "play in the joint" to the executive. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. In Delhi Science Forum and others v. Union of India and Another, (1996) 2 SCC 405 Supreme Court while dealing with a challeng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... review. It was further held that in matters relating to economic issues, the Government while taking the decision has right to 'trial and error' so long it is bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the Courts. It was further held that there is always a presumption that Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it lacks reasonableness and is not in public interest. The onus is heavy one and has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by bringing proper and adequate material on record. 41. From the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court the principles of law which can be culled out can be summarized as follows: (i) grant of licence for manufacture and sale of liquor is a matter of economic policy where the Court would be slow to interfere unless the policy is plainly arbitrary, irrational or malafide. (ii) The court must while adjudging the constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to economic matters grant certain measure of freedom or 'play in joint' to the execut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply to such a business principles applicable to trades which all could carry. The provisions of the regulation cannot be attacked merely on the ground that they create a monopoly. Properly speaking, there can be a monopoly only when a trade which could be carried on by all persons is entrusted by law to one or more persons to the exclusion of the general public. Such, however, is not the case with the business of liquor."44. Another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Amar Chandra Chakraborty (supra) while considering the question whether Section 43 of the Bengal Excise Act under which a licence of a liquor contractor was withdrawn violated Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, repelled the contention with regard to violation of Article 14 with the following observations: "Trade or business in country liquor has from its inherent nature been treated by the State and the society as a special category requiring legislative control which has been in force in the whole of India since several decades. In view of the injurious effect of excessive consumption of liquor on health this trade or business must be treated as a class by itself and it cannot be treated on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the question of challenge to creation of licence L-1A category in the Excise Policy 2016-17 may be dealt with. Licence L-1A category was created by amendment made in the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 vide notification issued in 2011 in exercise of power under Section 59 of the Act as noted above. However, on 23.3.2016, the new notification has been issued incorporating the amendment creating L-1A licence in its amended form. The State is fully empowered to frame policy for the sale of liquor and the courts shall be loathe in interfering in the same unless it is shown to be discriminatory or arbitrary. The creation of category of license L-1A between the distilleries and L-1 licencee to augment the revenue and stop leakage thereof cannot be said to be arbitrary. Further, the Excise Policy for the year 2016-17 was formulated on 13.3.2016, though the notification in exercise of power under Section 59 of the Act was issued on 23.3.2016, the same having been issued before the enforcement date for Excise Policy 2016-17 to be effective, i.e. 1.4.2016, cannot, thus, be faulted. The plea of the petitioners that the notification was issued after the start of the Excise year on 1.4.2016 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hod for making selections so that all the eligible persons/aspirants get a fair opportunity of competition. In other words, wherever issue of disposal of public property is concerned either by issuance of licence or otherwise, the State and its agencies/instrumentalities are required to adopt a rational method for its disposal and no attempt should be made to scuttle the claim of eligible applicants. This can be achieved either by holding public auction and where there are more applicants, then by draw of lots as well. The first-come-first served policy in the matters involving award of contracts or grant of licence or permission to use public property has been deprecated by the Apex Court in Re: Special reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 3 SCC 1, where it was observed as under:- "80. Dealing with Questions (iii) and (iv) in paras 94 to 96 of the judgment, this Court opined as follows: "94. There is a fundamental flaw in the first-come-firstserved policy inasmuch as it involves an element of pure chance or accident. In matters involving award of contracts or grant of licence or permission to use public property, the invocation of first-come-firstserved policy has inherently dangerou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nciple of "nondiscrimination". However, it is not a free-standing provision. It has to be read in conjunction with rights conferred by other articles like Article 21 of the Constitution. The said Article 21 refers to "right to life". It includes "opportunity". In our view, as held in the latest judgment of the Constitution Bench of nine Judges in I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N. [(2007) 2 SCC 1], Articles 21/14 are the heart of the chapter on fundamental rights. They cover various aspects of life. "Level playing field" is an important concept while construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is this doctrine which is invoked by REL/HDEC in the present case. When Article 19(1)(g) confers fundamental right to carry on business to a company, it is entitled to invoke the said doctrine of "level playing field". We may clarify that this doctrine is, however, subject to public interest. In the world of globalisation, competition is an important factor to be kept in mind. The doctrine of "level playing field" is an important doctrine which is embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This is because the said doctrine provides space within which equally placed competitors are al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualised than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness." 38. When tenders are invited, the terms and conditions must indicate with legal certainty, norms and benchmarks. This "legal certainty" is an important aspect of the rule of law. If there is vagueness or subjectivity in the said norms it may result in unequal and discriminatory treatment. It may violate doctrine of "level playing field". 31. In Pawan Bhatia and others vs. state of Haryana and others, (2015) 4 RCR (Civil) 666, this court observed thus:- "26. The licences have been granted on the basis of first come first served basis. The principle of first come first served basis has been commented adversely in Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others, (2012)3 SCC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c interest. 96. In our view, a duly publicised auction conducted fairly and impartially is perhaps the best method for discharging this burden and the methods like firstcome- first-served when used for alienation of natural resources/public property are likely to be misused by unscrupulous people who are only interested in garnering maximum financial benefit and have no respect for the constitutional ethos and values. In other words, while transferring or alienating the natural resources, the State is duty bound to adopt the method of auction by giving wide publicity so that all eligible persons can participate in the process." 28. The issue of grant of state privileges by the process of auction alone came up for answer in the Presidential Reference, since reported as Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1. The Constitution Bench held that action of the State, whether it relates to distribution of largesse, grant of contracts or allotment of land, is to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. The action has to be fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, without favouritism or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invest in research and development with the promise of exclusive access to the market for the sale of that invention. Such an approach is economically and legally sound and sometimes necessary to spur research and development. Similarly, bundling exploration and exploitation contracts may be necessary to spur growth in a specific industry. xx xx xx 146. To summarise in the context of the present Reference, it needs to be emphasised that this Court cannot conduct comparative study of the various methods of distribution of natural resources and suggest the most efficacious mode, if there is one universal efficacious method in the first place. It respects the mandate and wisdom of the executive for such matters. The methodology pertaining to disposal of natural resources is clearly an economic policy. It entails intricate economic choices and the Court lacks the necessary expertise to make them. As has been repeatedly said, it cannot, and shall not, be the endeavour of this Court to evaluate the efficacy of auction vis-à-vis other methods of disposal of natural resources. The Court cannot mandate one method to be followed in all facts and circumstances. Therefore, auction,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It has been claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner is engaged in the business of liquor trade for the past so many years in the State of Punjab and the newly added/created L-1A licence would deprive the rights of the petitioner in carrying out the liquor trade in the State of Punjab. Another factor needs mention is that the petitioner had filed the writ petition on 19.3.2016 which was heard by motion bench on 22.3.2016 challenging the very creation of amended L-1A category in the Excise Policy 2016-17 without amending the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956. The notification amending the said rules was issued during the pendency of the writ petition on 23.3.2016. It would not, thus, debar the petitioner from maintaining the writ petition. 35. Equally, the plea of the respondents for dismissal of the writ petition for want of necessary parties being impleaded has no weight. As noted earlier, the notification amending the Rules was issued on 23.3.2016 during the pendency of the writ petition. Further, on April 12, 2016, on the no objection of the learned Advocate General, Punjab, it was directed that allotment of licences L-1A shall be subject to the further orders to be pa....