The respondent Nos.
14.71 The tender of the appellant was much lower than the tender of Castle Douglas Industries Limited.
According to the appellant, this monopoly companytinued until the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal, AIR 1987 SC 251, in which the policy decision of the State Government to grant licence to set up new distilleries at new sites was upheld.
The prices tendered by the appellant and the Castle Douglas Industries Limited were as under.
By order and in name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh S. DUBEY Government of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Taxation Department.
Subject Regarding grant of licence DI to M s. Ramanarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal, Bilaspur for manufacture of industrial alcohol.
By this order, this State Government granted permission to give licence in favour of the appellant to manufacture potable alcohol in the interest of more companypetition.
Therefore, whenever a unit obtains a licence from the Government of India, for setting up a plant for producing industrial alcohol, it cannot without obtaining a licence from the Government of India, companyvert that licence for producing potable alcohol, by obtaining the permission or licence issued by the State Government.
B 1 64/85/VA.KAR/5 Bhopal dated 26th April, 1993 To The Excise Commissioner, P. Gwalior.
The State Government grants permission for manufacture of potable alcohol in order to encourage greater companypetition for issuance of licence to Messers Ramnarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal Distilleries Pvt.
The order was to the following effect No.
5.71 Price tendered by Castle Douglas Industries Ltd. Bilaspur Raipur Rs.
Reference Your memo No.
In the writ petition, they questioned the right of the appellant to make its tender on the following grounds That the appellant only holds an authorisation from the State Government b that the State Government had numberpower, authority or jurisdiction in the matter of licensing the manufacture of potable alcohol c that only the Central Government possesses such licensing authority and d that the appellant did number hold any licence from the Central Government.
Price tendered by the appellant Bilaspur Raipur Rs.
As regards the individual cases of respondents Nos.
Without a licence from the Central Government, an industrial undertaking for production or manufacture of alcohol cannot be set up.
It was held in that case by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court that the alcohol industry can be set up only after obtaining a licence from the Government of India and thereafter the State shall have the companytrol of the industry in terms of Entry 8 of list II of the Constitution which gives power to the State to legislate in respect of intoxicating liquor i.e. to say the production, manufacture, possession and transport.
This was followed up by another order, issued by the Additional Excise Commissioner on 29th April, 1993 which was as under OFFICE OF THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER MADHYA PRADESH, MOTI MAHAL, GWALIOR.
3/2/19 83/920 Gwalior dated 29.4.93.
SCR 330 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. Leave granted.
The tender of Castle Douglas was almost three times the appellants tender.
4 shall be entitled to companytinue its business as before but respondent number 5 the appellant herein had to obtain a licence from the Central Government for setting up of an industry for manufacture of potable alcohol.
According to the appellant, the trouble started b this case when the Excise Commissioner issued a numberice dated 8.7.1993 inviting tenders for supply of companyntry liquor in 19 supply areas of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
B l 64/85/Va. Kar 5 dated 26.4.93 of the State Government, Commercial Taxation Department.
14.71 Rs.
The Court held We have already held above that licences for setting up of industries for manufacture of potable alcohol and industrial alcohol has to be obtained separately and it cannot be treated as one and the same product.
In accordance with earlier cases the distiller would be responsible for the other licence permissible which they may be required to obtain from Government of India and other departments of the State Government for the manufacture of potable alcohol.
Subject Regarding grant of DI licence to Messers Ramnarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal, Bilaspur for manufacture of industrial alcohol.
The respondent No.
1320/1993 out of which this appeal by special leave arises.
Ltd., and Associated Alcohols Breweries Ltd, the respondent No.
To M s. Ramanarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal Distilleries Pvt.
All other distilleries in Madhya Pradesh are being run on similar terms and companyditions.
1 and 2 did number directly submit any tender, but another companycern of the Kedia Group i.e. Castle Douglas Industries Limited, submitted its tender.
Thereafter, the respondent Nos.
1995 1 Suppl.
1035/1993 .
The same procedure was followed by the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of all distilleries in Madhya Pradesh, including the distilleries belonging to Associated Alcohol Breweries Ltd., the respondent No.
5.21 Rs.
1 and 2 came out in the open and filed a writ petition M.P. No.
1 are both manufactures of potable alcohol.
Ltd., Chherka Bench, Bilaspur, which produces industrial alcohol.
Having failed b open companypetition the respondent Nos.
Initially, a writ petition was moved in the name Arvind Kashiv on 3.5,1993 P.No.
Arvind Kashiv failed to obtain ex parte stay of acceptance of the appellants tender.
1 and 2 are number trying to perpetuate their monopoly by legal process.
Licence obtained for setting up of an industry for manufacture of industrial alcohol cannot be allowed to produce potable alcohol unless a licence in that behalf is obtained from the Central Government.
1 belongs to Kedia Group of Distilleries Companies and enjoys a virtual monopoly in the manufacture of potable alcohol in the State of Madhya Pradesh along with two other business houses.
There was numberother companytender.
On 26th April, 1993, the Under Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Commercial Taxation Department, issued an order to the Excise Commissioner.
If the tender of Castle Douglas Industries Limited were accepted, the Exchequer would have suffered huge loss.
The appellant has claimed that the order dated 26.4.93 clearly states that it shall be the responsibility of the appellant to obtain such licence permission, as necessary, from any other department of the Central Government and the State Government.
Ltd. Chherpha Bandha, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh.
Sd Additional Excise Commissioner Madhya Pradesh.
Arvind Kashiv claimed to be a journalist interested in public causes.
4 and 5, in that writ petition, it was held that the respondent No.
The aforesaid two orders were passed in pursuance to the appellants application for permission to manufacture potable alcohol.
With reference to the aforesaid government order, permission is granted to you to manufacture potable alcohol under the DI licence granted to you on the companydition that you would be responsible for obtaining the necessary licence permission from the Government of India and other departments of the State Government according to rules applicable thereto and further that you would be required to follow all the necessary terms and companyditions under the Excise Act.
1 and Anand Kumar Kedia, the respondent No.
The appellant, Ramnarayan Satyanarayan Agrawal Distilleries Pvt.
3/2/670 dated 20.4.93.
