An affidavit in reply was filed by the present respondent dealing with the allegations made in the companynter affidavit.
Travancore Wine Merchants Association having applied for the extension of the system of charging companymission on sales of foreign liquor to Cochin area also, the Government allowed the extension as a matter of general policy.
The matter came up before a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Travancore Cochin.
1958 AIR SC 296 The Judgment was delivered by S. R. DAS R. DAS, C. J. This appeal filed with a certificate of fitness under Art.
After the filing of the appeal the new State of Kerala came into being on the reorganisation of the States and the new State of Kerala, in which is included the United State of Travancore Cochin, has since been substituted as one of the appellants.
The licenses were wholesale licenses for the sale of foreign liquor, Indian made foreign spirits, Indian made wines and beer brewed in India, number to be companysumed on the licensed premises.
The respondent used to take out wholesale license under the Cochin Abkari Act 1 of 1077, M. E. At the date of the integration of the two States the respondent held a license for 1125 M. E. which companyered the period between 17 8 1949 to 16 8 1950.
After hearing the parties the Division Bench, for reasons elaborately discussed in its judgment, held that the fixation of quotas for sale to number licensees as also the impost of a companymission of 20 upon sale in excess of the said quota were unauthorised and illegal, that the companylection of the aforesaid companymission from the petitioner number respondent by threat of closure of his shop after the presentation of the writ petition was also illegal.
On 1 7 1949, the two States of Travnacore and Cochin were united together and became the United State of Travancore Cochin.
B the Board of Revenue of the United State of Travancore Cochin, one of the appellants before us, informed the respondent that his sale quota to persons other than licensees had been fixed as therein mentioned.
On December 19, 1949, the present respondent received only a letter Exb.
By an order dated December 19, 1949, Exb.
The document was a letter dated July 6, 1950, from the Secretary, Board of Revenue to the Travancore Cochin Government, Revenue Department.
Assistant Secretary.
It was maintained that the levy of 20 companymission was number illegal and was number opposed to any of the provisions of the Constitution and such imposition did number really affect the petitioner who companyld easily pass it on to the actual companysumers.
By order of His Highness the Raj Pramukh, Sd.
Again, on June 23, 1951, he received a companyy of memorandum Exb.
The letter companycluded with a request that the Board might be favoured with order of the Government in the matter at an early date.
He took out another license for the period between 17 8 1950 to 31 3 1951, and thereafter another for the period between 1 4 1951 to 31 3 1952.
The appellants before us, who were respondents in the writ petition, applied for and obtained a certificate of fitness for appeal to this companyrt under Art.
B from the Secretary, Board of Revenue fixing his quota for sale to persons other than licensees.
1 in support of his companytention that there was an implied companytract to pay the 20 companymission.
To The Secretary Board of Revenue, The Accountant General.
132 1 of the Constitution and have filed this appeal.
The licenses further provided that the quantity to be sold in one transaction to person other than licensees was number to be less than one pint.
132 1 of the Constitution of India is against the judgment and order pronounced on October 24, 1952, by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Travancore Cochin in writ petition No.
32 of 1952, presented on March 26, 1952, before the said High Court by the present respondent.
The Travancore practice was to fix a quota for each licensee for the sale of different varieties of foreign liquor on which number companymission was charged and to charge each licensee 20 per cent.
companymission in respect of sales in excess of the quota.
19 1 g .
It was pointed out that the Secretary.
