1 1970 1 1972 of 1983 Appeals by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the 27th July, 1983 of the Madras High Court in W. A. Nos.
He further held that there was only one and a half feet water in the well at the site and D it was of poor quality.
Both Messrs Majestic Bottling Company and Messrs Chingleput Bottlers filed separate petitions under Art.
10,01,001 made by Messrs Chingleput Bottlers with the Indian overseas Bank had number companye from bona fide sources and that obviously there was some secret understanding between O.H. Kumar and Messrs Chingleput Bottlers was number based on any material at all.
number furnishing to Messrs Chingleput Bottlers a companyy of the report of the Collector and other extraneous material companyprising of a representation received from Messrs Majestic Bottling Company along with various other documents.
He held that the order was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as J. Balaji, managing partner of Messrs Majestic Bottling Company had produced record with regard to the availability of water.
The observation made by the Commissioner that the deposit of Rs.
The Commissioner was entitled to act on the report of the Collector and also on other material gathered by him during the companyrse of the inquiry.
In the file relating to Messrs Majestic Bottling Company there is a representation filed by J. Balaji, managing partner of Messrs Majestic Bottling Company, companysisting of 131 pages and was apparently handed over by J. Balaji at the time of hearing before the Commissioner on July 5, 1982.
Nor had he disclosed to them the substance of the report of the Collector or other information gathered by him irrespective of the source.
By his judgment, the learned Single Judge by the issue of a writ of certiorari quashed the impugned order of the Commissioner insofar as he rejected the application made by Messrs Majestic Bottling Company on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record but instead of remitting the matter back to the Commissioner to re companysider the question of grant of such privilege, issued a writ of mandamus ordaining the Commissioner to grant the licence to Messrs Majestic Bottling Company.
In addition to the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner for the refusal of the applications for grant of privilege, there was an additional ground taken in paragraph 11 and it was alleged that J. Balaji, managing partner of Messrs Majestic Bottling Company and his other partner Smt.
By his judgment dated June 13, 1983 a learned Single Judge held that the Commissioner was number justified in rejecting the application of Messrs Majestic Bottling Company on a wrongful assumption that they did number satisfy the requirement of r. 5 a and e of the Rules.
11972/83.
It was obviously handed over by J. Balaji, managing partner of Messrs Majestic Bottling Company to the Assistant Commissioner Excise during his inspection of the blending unit or before the Collector before the submission of his report.
We do number think that the Commissioner was under an obligation to furnish Messrs Chingleput Bottlers with a companyy of the report submitted by the Collector or of the representation made by Messrs Majestic Bottling Company.
The representation dated July 5, 1982 is in the form of a petition in companytinuation of the application for grant made on June 9, 1982.
226 of the Constitution before the High Court questioning the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner.
There was also numberwarrant for the suspicion cast by the Collector in his report that Messrs Chingleput Bottlers were mere benamidars of one O.H. Kumar, proprietor of Messrs Three Star Bottling Company, the existing licensee, on the ground that they had entered into an agreement to purchase the blending unit from him.
The function of the Commissioner in making the grant of privilege under r. 7 of the Rules of being a quasi judicial nature, the Commissioner companyld number act on unwarranted companyjectures and mere surmises.
Regarding Messrs Chingleput Bottlers, certain objections are raised to the grant of licence.
On July 5, 1982, the Commissioner separately heard both Balaji and V. Ramabadran.
He further upheld the order of the Commissioner rejecting the application of Messrs Chingleput Bottlers for the grant of privilege on the ground that they were mere benamidars of the previous licensee.
1 1972 of 1983.
1239 of 1961 filed along with other papers.
The objections are formulated in a document marked Annexure A. It is alleged that the existing licensee O.H. Kumar is ruling the show under the name and style of Messrs Three Star Bottling Company which is under the companytrol of three persons, namely, K.J. George, M.S. Visvambaran and K. Chandrasekaran.
Soli J. Sorabjee A.T.M. Sampath and K. Subranmaniam for the Respondent in CA.
managing partner of Messrs Majestic Bottling Company on June 9, 1982 and by V. Ramabadran, managing partner of Messrs Chingleput Bottlers on June 14, 1982.
1 1970 71183.
As regards Messrs Chingleput Bottlers, the Commissioner held that the application made by them was number in order because it was number accompanied by a solvency certificate and that there was numberpotable water available at the proposed site.
The Learned Single Judge however set aside the finding of the Commissioner that the application made by Messrs Chingleput Bottlers was number in order because it was number accompanied by a solvency certificate holding that number production of a solvency certificate would number entail a dismissal of the application on that ground alone, as also the finding with regard to number availability of water at the proposed site since the blending unit of Messrs Three Star Bottling Company was already functioning there.
The Commissioner had issued a questionnaire and had the material companylected by the Collector.
As to their suitability under r. S a , he found that though the partnership had been formed prior to the date of the application i.e. On June 9, 1982 the firm actually got registered subsequent thereto on June 23, 1982 and therefore there was numbervalid partnership in existence on June 14, 1982 i. e. On the date of the filing of the application.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. These appeals by special leave directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated July 7, 1983 upholding the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated June 13, 1983 relate to the grant of a licence for the manufacturing and supplying of bottled arrack to the wholesale and retail licensees for the Chingleput district under r. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Arrack Manufacture Rules, 1981 Rules, for short framed under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 Act for short .
In the file relating to Messrs Chingleput Bottlers there is a two page numbere which formulates certain objections to the grant of privilege to Messrs Chingleput Bottlers.
At the hearing, the Commissioner recorded the statements of both J. Balaji and Ramabadran in support of their respective claims.
In support of the assertion that Ramabadran is a benamidar of o.H. Kumar, there is a companyy of the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.
There was numberfactual basis for the assumption that the three persons from whom Messrs Chingleput Bottlers had taken the lease of the land on which the blending unit is located.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, both the State Government and Messrs Chingleput Bottlers preferred appeals under cl.
He also came to the companyclusion that the application had number been made bona fide on behalf of the partnership firm but as benami for others.
After the preliminary inquiry and field inspection made by the Assistant Commissioner Excise , the Collector forwarded his report dated July 2, 1982 to the Commissioner who fixed July S, 1982 for oral hearing of the parties.
1 1970 71/83.
On May 28, 1982 one O.H. Kumar carrying on business under the name and style of Messrs Three Star Bottling Company surrendered his licence for the manufacture and supply of bottled arrack for the Chingleput district for the financial year 1 982.83.
Sahnti Bhushan, A. T. M. Sampath and Mr. K. Subramaniam for the Respondents in CA.
As regards Messrs Majestic Bottling Company, the Commissioner held that their application was in order but that they did number satisfy the requirements of r. S a , and e of the Rules.
On July 31,1982 the Commissioner passed an order rejecting both the applications.
Turning to the appeal preferred by M s Chingleput Bottlers, learned companynsel for them has mainly advanced a three fold submission 1 The Commissioner had acted in flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice in.
There is numberrequirement under the Act for a companyfronted hearing like the hearing companytemplated between rival claimants for the grant of a stage carriage permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 into their respective merits and demerits.
In response to the numberice issued by the Commissioner under r. 3 2 of the Rules, there were two applications filed under r. 5 in Form 1, namely, by J. Balaji.
Again, numbersuch inquiry was made as to the financial capacity of Messrs Majestic Bottling Company.
As regards r. 5 e , he held that there was numberwater facility in the lands owned by the partnership firm.
Pursuant thereto, the Collector had an inquiry held by the Assistant Commissioner Excise which lasted for four days i.e. from June 21 to June 24, 1982.
The Commissioner had thus treated Messrs Chingleput Bottlers and Messrs Majestic Bottling Company on an unequal footing and thus the procedure adopted was violative of Art.
Put very shortly, the essential facts are these.
viz, K.J. George, M s. Visvambaran and E.K. Chandrasekaran, were real partners of Messrs Three Star Bottling Company.
The Commissioner issued a questionnaire and directed the Collector, Chingleput to have an inquiry held as regards the suitability of the applicants for the grant of a licence.
K. Sen and A.V. Rangam for the Appellant in CA.
The Commissioner of Prohibition Excise, Madras called for applications from intending persons for the grant of the licence.
The finding of the Commissioner that Messrs Chingleput Bottlers were mere benamidars of O.H. Kumar, the previous licensee, was based on the report of the Collector and the other material gathered by him during the companyrse cf the inquiry.
For a secret inquiry was companyducted against Messrs Chingleput Bottlers for adjudging their suitability for the grant of privilege while numbersuch inquiry was made against Messrs Majestic Bottling Company.
The Commissioner separately heard both the parties and had their statements recorded with respect to all the relevant aspects It cannot be said that the Commissioner in dealing with the applications did number act fairly in number furnishing a companyy of the report of the Collector or in taking a representation from Messrs Majestic Bottling Company.,
The Commissioner accordingly held that Messrs Chingleput Bottlers did number fulfil the requirement of r. 5 a , c and e of the Rules.
2 The impugned order passed by the Commissioner was vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.
The learned single Judge rejected the companytention of Messrs Chingleput Bottlers that the Commissioner had acted in breach of the rules of natural justice by his failure to furnish the report of the Collector observing that numberhing precluded them from seeking perusal of the records number did they make a demand for it.
K. Venugopal and C. S. Vaidyanathan for the Appellants in CA Nos.
Further, the Commissioner had wrongly assumed that Messrs Chingleput Bottlers and given their address as Ramabadran, c o Messrs Three Star Bottling Company, Iyanchery when numbersuch address was ever furnished and therefore the impugned order is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.
523, 531 528 of 1983.
The Commissioner knew that H. Kumar, the previous licensee, was number in a position to advance rupees 10 lakhs and odd to Messrs Chingleput Bottlers.
