In the interregnum, the Government policy was changed by a cabinet sub committe policy decision dated 30.12.1984, whereby they decided to grant licence to the existing licen sees of the distilleries and that they should companystruct the factories at their expenses on the land allotted by the State Government or acquired and allotted by the State Government and that they shift the business to new factories and the licence would be for a period of five years.
The practice as per the provisions of the M.P. Excise Act 1915 for short the Act and M.P. Distilleries, Breweries and Warehouses Rules for short the rules issued in exercise of the powers under s. 62 was to call for the tenders to manufacture and supply the rectified spirit or denatured spirit, spirit companyntry made to the retail vendors within the area attached to the distillery.
The period of licence was at that time for five years.
During the hearing of the writ petition, the Attorney General of India companyceded that if the petitioner makes any application for grant of licence it would be companysidered by the State Govt.
Pursuant thereto the petitioner made an application on December 25, 1987 followed by several reminders.
rejected the petition by letter dated February 8, 1988, which is impugned in this writ petition.
or acquired and allotted by the State Govt.
This companyrt upheld the policy of the Govt.
Pursuant thereto the petition er made an application on December 25, 1987.
and that they shift the business to new factories and the licence would be for a period of five years.
198 1.
changed the policy by a Cabinet Sub Committee policy deci sion dated December 30, 1984 under which they decided to grant licence to the existing licensees of the distilleries and that they should companystruct the factories at their ex penses on the land allotted by the State Govt.
Initially stay was granted, but later it was vacated on August 20, 1981 Licence was granted for the period starting from August 25,1981 to March 31, 1986 to RDC and the dis tillery, plant and machinery at Ujjain was handed over to RDC on August 28.
Thereafter the petitioner filed another writ petition No.
169/82 on March 16, 1982 for redelivery Of the plant and machinery and the warehouses and other companysequential reliefs.
The last of the licences held by the petitioner was for the years April 1, 1976 to March 31, 198 1.
did number intend to create any monopoly in favour of the existing licensees.
That writ petition was dis missed by the High Court against which Civil Appeal No.
The plants and ma chinery therein initially were of the Government, but in companyrse of time the licensees installed or replaced the plants and machinery and became the owners.
Several writ petitions including the one by the petitioner were filed in the High Court challenging the policy.
Those petitions were disposed of by this Court by its judg ment in the case of State of M.P.v.
The companyrt upheld the validity of the Government policy.
licence on February 19,1982 and reiterated his request by number of reminders including the one in November 3, 1986.
The petitioner and its predecessors had licence for the distillery at Ujjain for well over 40 years to manufacture rectified spirit.
498E 499A ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
That companycession was numbered and the argument was founded thereon to hold that the Govt.
During the companyrse of the arguments, the Attorney General of India companyceded that if the petitioner makes an application for grant of licence, it would be companysidered by the Govern ment and disposed of quickly.
1987 1, SCR 1.
and be disposed of quickly.
It was disposed of by this companyrt reported in Jaiswals case.
Against that order, petitions were filed by the State and the unsuccess ful petitioners including the petitioner in this Court.
5483/83 was filed, which is just number disposed of.
It was held therein that nine distilleries in the State of Madhya Pradesh in cluding the one at U j jain were set up on the lands and buildings belonging to the Government.
32 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a partnership firm seeks reliefs of mandamus to direct the State Government and the Commissioner of Excise of M.P. to allow the petitioner to set up a distillery pursuant to the cabinet policy dated December 30, 1984 and to grant D 2 licence to declare the letter dated February 8, 1982 as unconstitutional, illegal and of numbereffect in law and to direct the respondent Nos.
and allowed the appeals and dismissed the special leave petitions of the petitioner and other.
The Division Bench partly allowed the writ petition and quashed part of the policy decision.
Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors.,
Ultimately the State Govt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. In this writ petition under Art.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
1 and 2 to grant a licence to manufacture potable Alcohol within the state of Madhya Pradesh and to grant D 1 licence to supply companyntry made liquor, etc.
Under s. 13 of the Act, the State Govt.
Calling in question of that policy several writ petitions including the one by the petitioner were filed in the M.P. High Court.
The petitioner challenged in Misc.
Rajdahani Dis tillers Corporation, for short RDC became the successful tenderer for the licensing period starting from April 1, 1981 to March 31, 1986.
N. Ganpule.
R.S. Singh and Rameshwar Nath for the Respondents.
Against it appeals and special leave petitions were filed by the State and the unsuccessful petitioners including the petitioner.
Petition No.
V.M. Tarkunde, S.K. Agnihotri, S.K. Sinha, Rajinder Narain.
In the State of M.P. v. NandlaI Jaiswal Ors.,
F. Nariman and P.H. Parekh for the Petitioners.
The peti tioner had applied for grant of licence on February 19, 1982 and he reiterated his request in number of reminders includ ing one oh November 3, 1986.
This case has behind it chequered history which is necessary to adumbrate.
1987 1 SCR 1 this companyrt companysidered the legality of the policy, the subject matter in the writ petition.
729 of 1988.
701/81 in the M.P. High Court under Art.
is empowered to grant licence to manufacture, possession and sale of recti fied spirit and the liquor in the distilleries or the brew eries.
In the interregnum the Govt.
