HAR SHANKAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus THE DY. EXCISE & TAXATION COMMR. & ORS.

HAR SHANKAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.

THE DY. EXCISE & TAXATION COMMR. & ORS.

January 21, 1975

[A. N. RAY, c.:r., K. K. MArnEw, Y. v. CHANDRAcHuo, A. ALAGIRISWAMl AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226-Petition under reciprocal righrs and obligatiol!S arising out of contract, if could be enforced.

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226 and P1111jab Excise Act, 1914 and Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956-Appellants applying for and accepting licences to vend foreign. liquor Appella11ts, if co11ld question tlze validity of Rules while a11empti111? to exploit lice11ces,

Constit11tio11 of India, 1950, Art. 19(1) (g)·-Business i11 i11toxicants-~·Cirize11, if has fundamental right to trade i11 i11toxicants-State, if has power to prohi· bit absolutely el'ery form of activity relating to intoxicants.

The Pu11jab Acr. 1 of 1914, Sections 27 and 34-Levy of 'licc11ce fe.~' and ·'fixed fee' 011 traders in liquor-'fee', if fee in technical sense of the expressio11,

Pu11jab Excise Act, 1 of 1914, S. 34 and Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956, Rules 35 and 59(d)-Grant of licence to the sale of liquor-Fee, if can be fixed by auction.

Punjab Excise Act, 1 of 1914, Ss. 3(9), 34, 59(d) and 60 and l'u11jab Liq11or Licence Rules, 1956, Rules 11, 12 and 31-Levy of 'fixed fee' and additional fee on persons lwlding licences for sole of foreign liquor, if illegal.

The appellants are retail vendors of country liquor holding licences for the sale of liquor in specified vends. Those licences were granted to them on accep-tance of their bids, in the auctions held by the Excise Department, Government of Punjab. The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 485 and 2205 of 1969 held licences for the retail sale of foreign liquor for consumption on the premises of their respective establishments.

Facts in Civil Appeal: No. 365 of 1971 are as follows :

Consequent on the judgment dated March 12, 1968 of the High Court of Pun· jab and Haryana in Civil Writ No. 1376 of 1967 (!age Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.), holding that the auctions for granting the right tci ·sell country liquor for the year 1968-69 had become ineffective, the first respondent held on March 23, 1968 an auction for granting the right to sell coµntry liquor at the 'Town Hall Vend' and 'Kailash Cinema Chowk Vend', Ludhiana. The appellants gave bids in the sum of Rs. 34,01,000 and Rs. 12,02,000 respectively for two vends, and those bids were duly accepted by the first respondent. The appellants were then granted licences in Form L. 14-A of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956. The appellants deposited Rs. 1,41,708 for the Town Hall Vend aPd Rs. 50,091 for the Kailash Cinema Chowk Vend being 1 /24th of the licence fee required to be deposited by way of security. They were, however, unable f[O meet their obligations uniler the conditions of auction and fell in arrears. The State Government demanded the payment, threatened to cancel the licen~s gra:nted to the appellants and declared its· intention to resell the vends at the risk of the appellants. On August 22. 1968, the appellants filed their writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. They prayed for direction quashing the auction held on Murch 23, 1968 and secondly, they asked that the respondents be restrained form enforcing the obfigations arising under the terms and conditions of the auction.

The High Court held that the State Legislature was competent to regu'late the business of vending intoxicating liquors, that various provisions of the Act showed that the State Government had the exclusive right to manufacture or sell intoxi· cants, that the Financial Commissioner held the jurisdiction to determine the method of disposal of country liquor vends, that the rules under which the

impugned auctions were held are substantially different from those under which the auctions challenged in !age Ram's case were held, that s. 34 of the Act is not an instance of delegated legislation and that the fixation of the maximum price of country liquor was part of the power to regulate the trade in liquor. On the main contention that the levy in th.e shape of licence fee was un-constitutional, the High Court held that licences granted for regulating trade in intoxicating liquors stand in class by themselv~s and that the consideration which governs licence fees charged in return for services rendered cannot apply to licences issued to the successful bidders at auctions of liquor vends. The High Court further held that Entry 66 in the State List is not confined to foes levied for services rendered but extends to all kinds of fees and therefore the imposition of the licence fee was within the ambit of that Entry.

In these appeals founded on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(a) and (c) of the Con-stitution, it was contended on· behalf of the appellants that ( 1) the Financial Com-missioner has no power to frame rnles so as to authorise the grant of liquor licen-c ces by holding auctions; (2) under s. 34 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, the Financial Commissioner has no right to authorise the levy or collection of any amount which, strictly, is not fee; an auction bid for fixing 'fees' is contrndic-tion in terms; (3) The licence fee bears no relationship with the services rendered to the licensees and is therefore not 'fee' in the true sense. Nor can the licence fee be justified as an 'excise duty' as it is not levied on the manufacture or pro-duction of liquor; ( 4) The real character of the levy imposed on licensees through the medium of auctions is that it is in the nature of tax; and the Financial Com. missioner who is a!l independent statutory authoritv having powers which are dis-tinct and different from those of the Government, has no authority lo im;)ose the tax; nor indeed, has the State Government the power to impose such rnx; (5) The Government cannot under contract impose levy which it has no power to impose by law; (6) The new terms and conditions of auctions are. basically and in substance, similar to those which were stru.ck down by the Punjab High Court in .Tage Ram's case which decision was affirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court; and (7) The demand made by the Government for payment of large sums of money by hoteliers and bar-keepers who supply foreign liquor for consumption on their premises is arbitrary, without the authority of law and otherwise illegal. The respondents raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the appellants and to the grant of reliefs claimed by them on the ground that such of the appellants who offered their bids in the auctions did so with full knowledge of the terms and conditions attaching to the auctions and they cannot by their writ petitions, be permitted to wriggle out of the contractual obligations arising out of the acceptance of their bins.

Dismissing the appeals,

HELD; (On the preliminary objection raised by the respondents). The bids given by the appellants constitute offers and upon their acceptance by the Gov-ernment binding agreement came into existence between the parties. Th~ con-ditions of auction became the terms of the contract and it is on those terms that licences are granted to the successful bidders in Form L 14-A of the Rules. The licensees exploited the respective licences for portion of the period of their cur-rency, presumably in expectation of profit. Commercial considerations may have revealed an error of judgment in the initial assessment of profitability of the adventure but that is normal incident of all trading transacEons. Those who contract with open eyes must accept the burdens of the contract along with its benefits. The powers of the Financial Commissioner to grant liquor li:ences by m1ction and to collect licence fees through the medium of auctions cannot by writ petitions be questioned by those who, had their venture succeeded, would have relied upon those very powers to found legal claim. Reciprocal rights and obligations arising out of contract do not depend for their enforceabilitv upon whether contracting party finds if prudent to abide by the terms of the contract. By such test no contract could ever .have binding force. [265B: 2630-E]

Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Mwwging Officer & Ors., [196qj I S.C.R. 120, relied on.

Eashes/lar Nath v. The Commissioner o/ Income-tax, Delhi, and Ra/asthan ~ Anr. [l9S9] Supp. l S.C.R. 528, referred to.

Just as country liquor contractors offered bids voluntarily on terms and con· ditirms governing the auctions, the appellants in Civil Appeills Nos. 485 ~ncl 2:;.JS of 1969 who hold licences in Form Nos. L-3, L-4 and L·5 for the retail vt;nJ of foreign liquor, 11oluntarily applied for and accepted the licences knowiufl fully well that the Financial Commissioner had the power to frame rules governinr. the lic.ences. The I ice.nces, ill large measure, owe their existence and vulidity to the rule-muKing power of the Financial Commissioner. One of the relief~ which the appellants ask for is that Rules 27 A, 30 and 31 be declared ullra vim und un· constitutional and consequently the respondents be directed to refund the as1.esseci fees already recc>vered. Ely attempting to exploit the licences ·without the burden of assessed fees originally attachinP. to them under the rules framed by the Finan· cial Commissioner, the appellants arc seeking to work the licences 011 such terms as they find convenient. The writ jurisdiction of High Courts under t\Tt. ~~26 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligations volulltal'il)' incurl'lld. [26S H; 266 A"B)Hald f11rt/1er, (i) Thc1 true position gov!rnin11 dealings in intoxicants i~ as stated and reflected in the Constitution Bencl1 decisions of this Court in The Stare of Bom~n" and Anr. v, F. N. Ba/sara, [1951) S.C.R. 682, Cooverjee B. Blumisha v. The .. ~ ••. ' Commissio11er and the Chie · Commls.rioner, A/mer & Ors. 1.1954] S.C.R. 875, Slate of Assam v. A. N. K/dw.11, Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Sl1il/ong (1957] S.C.R. 295, Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr:v. The Commis· . stoner of Hills Division a11d Appeals, As.iam and Ors. (1958] S.C.R. 1240, Amar Chandra Chakrabarty v. Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura &: Ors. (1973] 1 S.C.R. 633 aod State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Cltamarbaugwa/a, 11957] S.C.R. 874 as interpreted in State of Orissa and Ors. v. Harinarayan lalswal and Ors. (1972] S.C.R. 784 and Nashirwar etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh &. Ors. Civil Appeals :to(os. 1711-1721 and 1723 of 1974 decided on November 27. 1974. There is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants. The State, under its regulator).' powers, has the right to prohlbit absolutely every form of activitv in relation to intoxicants-its manufacture, storage, export, import, s~le and nossmion. In all their manifestations, th1:se rights are vested in the State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various form$ of activities in relation to intoxicants. (277 F·G]

Krishna Kumar Narufa etc. v. The State of lammu and KaJhmir & Ors. [1967] 3 S.C.R. SO, discussed and explained.

Crowley v. Christamrn, S4 Law, Ed. 620, 623 and Russel v. The Queen 7 A.C. 829, referred to.

(ii) The distinction whi.ch the Constitution mnk.~s for legislative purpose1; bet· ween 'tax' and 'fee' :ind the characteristic> 0f th~sc two as also of 'excise dut~ · are well known. The amour.ts charged to th~ 1kensccs in ;he instant c~se: are, 1evidently, neither in the natur» 0f tax nor of excise duty. But then, the 'licence :fee' which the State Govrron:ent charged to the licensees through the medium of auctions or the 'fixed foe' vhich it charged to the vendors of foreign liquor hold· ing licen:es in Form5. L-3, L-4 and L-5 need bear no quid pro quo to the services rendered to the licensees. The word 'fee' is .iot used in the Act or the Rufos in 1the technical sense of the cxpre.ssion. By 'licence fee' or '.fii;:<ld fee'-,is mearit the price or consideration whicn the Government charges to· ilie licensees for p:1rting with its privileges and granting them to the licensees. As !tie State can carry on trade or business, such charge is the normal incident of trading or business transaction. [278 H; 279 B-C]

Mathews v. Chickory Marketing Board, 60 C.L.R. 263, 276, The Commis-sioner, Hinda Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swa· miar of Sri Shirur Mutt; [1~!541 S.C. 1005. 1041 and Mis. Gu~uswamy & Co. Etc. v. Slate of Mysore & Ors., (1967] 1 S.C.R. 548, referred to.

Gundbing v. Chi~ap,o, 44 T .ed. 725, Richard v. Mobile, 52 i:ed. 581, referred to.

Philiips v. Mobile, 52, L.ed. 578 and

(iii) The position· obtaining under the Rules as amended on March 22, 1968 is in principle different ai the still-bead dnty is now only 0.64 Paise as against

HAR SHANKAR v. DY. ·EXCISE OFFICER (Chandrachud, !.) 257

Rs. 17·60 per litre \1-hich was in force under the old rules and excise duty as such is no longer payable on unlifted quota. The principles governing the deci~ions in Bhajan La/'s case C.A. Nos. 1642 and 1643 of 1968 decided on August 21, 1972) and Jage Ram's case cannot, therefore, apply any longer. [281 E·F]

(iv) As the amount payable by the licensees on the basis of the bids offered n by them in auction and on the basis of Fixed and Assessed Fees' is neither fee in the technical sense nor tax but is in the nature of the price of privilege, there is no question of the Financial Commissioner lacking power to organize auctions so as to authorize the recovery of any amount which is not fee properly so-called. 111e Financial Commissioner, under s. 34 of the Act read with rule 59 ( d), has the power to direct that licences may be granted on payment of such fees, that is, such consideration as he may by rules prescribe. It is open to him to frame rule, as he has in fact framed Rule 35, directing that any class of licences may be granted on payment of fees fixbd by auction. Once it is appreciated that auc· tions are only mode or medium for ascerta·ining the best price obtainable for the grant of privilege to sell liquor, there would be no 'contradiction in terms' in · directing, as r. 35 does, that class of "licences may be granted on the fee fixed by auction''. [281 F·H]

( v) It is true that the amendments under which the appellants (holding licen· ces for sale of Foreign liquor) have been called upon to pay fixed fees were made after the licences were renewed. But the licences, though renewed in January 1968, were to be effective from April 1, 1968. The amendments having come into force before April !, would govern the appellants' licences and they are, there· fore, liable to pay the fixed fees under the amended rules. Licences are granted under s. 34 of the Act subject to the payment of such fees as the Financial Com· missioner may direct. Tl\e rules made under s. 59(d) authorize the imposition of additional fees and such authorization would operate on all licences to be effec· tive thereafter. Such payments demanded from the appellants are "excise re· venue' within the meaning of s. 3(9) and 60(1) (a) of the Act and it. is, there-fore, open to the Government to recover its dues in the manner authorised by s. 60 of the Act, [282 E-F]

C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 365, 366,

485, 1102, 1260 to 1263, 1385, 1537, 1548 to 1551, 1553 to 1555, 1557 to 1560, 1566 to 1573, 1588, 1588, 1589, AND 2205 of 1969.

Appeals from the Judgment- & Order dated the 18th November, 1968/6th/10th/24th January, 1969 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court m C.W. Nos. 37 /69, 2646)68, 2582/68, 1818, 2343, 2875, 2754, 2254, 2256, 2629, 2630, 2753 & 2911/68 91/69, 2706-2708, 3084, 2460, 2461, 2644, 2652, 2580, 2581, 2549, 2699, 2501, 2694, 1277 and 2514 of 1968, fqr the appellants (In C. As. Nos. 365, 366, 1102, 1537, 1548-1551, 1553-1555, 1557-1560, 1566-1573, 1588 & 1589/69). I

V. M. Tarkunde (In C.A. Nos. 1566, 485/69), A. K. Sen (In

C.A. Nos. 1559 & 1588/69) Tirdth Singh Munjral, (In all the

appeals) except C.As. Nos. 1537, 1554, 1557 and 1558/69) P. C. Bhartari and O. C. Mathur (In all the appeals and B. P. Jhai (In all the appeals except C.As. Nos. 1566, 485, 1559 & 1588/69).

S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and M. Qamaruddi11, for the appel-1a,1ts. In C.As. Nos. 1260-1263/693.

K.. B. Rohtagi and Tarachand Sharma, for the appellants, (In C.A. No. 1385/69).

Tirath Singh Munjral and H. K. Puri, for the appellants On C.A; No. 2205/69).

F. S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India, In C.A. No. 365/69) v. C. Mahajan (In C.A. No. 1102/69), H. S. Dhillon (In C.A. Nos. 1588-1589/69) K. S. Chawla (In C.A. No. 2205/69) S. S. Jauhar (ln C.A. No. 1537 /69), S. K. Gambhir (In C.As. Nos. 1548-1551/69) N. S. Das. Behl (In C.As. Nos.· 1553-1555/69), Bishamber Lal, (In C. As. Nos. 1557-1560/69) Harbans Singh, (In C. As. Nos. 1566-1573/69), N. N. Goswami (In C.A. Nos. 1588-1589/69) K. S. Chawla (In C.A. No. 2205/69) 0. P. Sharma, (In all the matters), for the respondents (In C.As. Nos. 366, 1260-1263, 1385, 1537, 1548-1551, 1553-1555, 1557-1560, 1566-1.567 1573 & 2205/69) and respondent Nos. l-'-3 (In C.As. Nos. 365, 1102, 1568-1572, 1588 and 1589/69). 0. P. Shanna, for respondents (In C.As. Nos. 485/69). The· Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J.-This is group of appeals founded on certi-ficates of fitness granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Articles 132(1) and 133(1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution. The appeals arise out of common judgment dated November 18, 1968 rendered by the High Court in batch ,of 152 writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Those petitions were filed by liquor contractors and hoteliers to challenge the demands made upon them by the Department of Excise and Revenue, Government of Punjab.

The appellants are mostly retail vendors of country liquor hold-ing licences for the sale of liquor in specified vends. Those licences were granted to them on acceptance of their bids in the auctions held by the Excise Department, Government of Punjab. The 'licence fees' realised through bids made in the auction are said to be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 29 crores. ·

In Civil Appeals Nos. 485 and 2205 pf 1969, the appellants held licences for the reta:il sale of foreign liquor for consumption on the premises of their respective establishments. '

Civil Writ No. 264-5 of 1968 out of which Civil Appeal No. 365 of ~ 971 arises, may be t~ken to be typical of the petitions filed by retail vendors of country ltquor. For understanding the points in con-troversy it would be enough to refer to the facts of that petition.

Auctio,ns for granting the right to sell country liquor for the year 1968-69 were initially held in various districts of Punjab on or about March 8, 1968 in pursuance of conditions of auction framed on FebruJry 19, 1968. Those auctions became ineffective by rea:son of n judgment dated March 12, 1968 of Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ No. 1376 of 1967 (Jage Ram and Ors. "S. State of Harya1~a & Ors.). Following an earlier judgment in Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab (Civil Writ No. 528 of J 966 decided on February 6, 1967), the High Court took the view that the licence fee ~ealised through the medium of auctions was really in the nature of "still-head duty and that licences could· not be called upon by the Government to pay still-head duty on the liquor quota which, un,<ler the terms of auctions, they were bound to lift but which in fact was not lifted by them. On March 21, 1969 meeting of the State Excise. Officers was . held under the cha'irmanship of the Financial Commissioner to evolve new formula for leasing the right to sell liquor so as to meet the judgment in' Jage Ram's case. The new policy containing fresh terms · and conditions of auction was announced on the 22nd and the impugned auctions in pursuance of that policy were held immediately thereafter. On March 23, 1968 the first respondent-the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur-held an auction for granting the right to sell country liquor at the Town Hall Vend' and the 'Kailash Cinema Chowk Vend', Ludhiana. The appellants gave bids in the sum of Rs. 34,01,000 and Rs. 12,02,000 respectively for the two vends and those bids were duly accepted by the first respondent. The appel· !ants were then granted licences in Form L. 14-A of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 (herein called "the Rules"), Forlll L. 14-A is prescribed under the Rules for the grant of licences for "retail vend of country spirit for consumption off the premises". The conditions governing auctions were notified through announce-F ments made at the time of auctions. Condition No .. l provides that all licences for sale of country spirit, foreign liquor, Beer, etc. shall be granted subject to the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act, 1 of 1914, (hereinafter called "the Act") and the rules framed there-under. By Condition 14 (1), licences for retail vend of country spirit are granted on the basis of "licence fee" fixed by auction. Condition 14(ii) requires that the quota of country liquor fixed for each vend must be announced before the vend is put to auction. Under Condi-tion 15(i) the successful bidder has to deposit security equivalent to 1 /24th of the amount of the annual lice\1ce fee within the stated period. The security is refundable to the licensee at the end of the year unless it is liable to be. forfeited or adjusted against any amount due from him in respect of the licence. aause (ii) of condition 15 requires the successful bidder to pay the whole amount of licence fee in 24 equal instalmen~ spread over the year. aause (iii) of Condi-tion 15 authorises the Collector to resell the ve.nd if the successful bidder fails to deposit the security or refuses to accept the licence.In the event of such resale, any deficiency in the; licence fee i:s re-coverable from the defaulter in the manner laid down in section 60 of the Act which provides by clauses (a) and ( c) that all ",excise revenue" and all amounts due to the Government on account c1f any contract relating to the excise revenue may be recovered from the person lia'ble to pay the same by any process for the recevery of arrears of land revenue. By Condition 15(iv), similar right is con-ferred on the: Collector to resell vend in the event of the cancel-lation of licence. By Condition 17, the still-head duty on ordinary spiced co.untry spirit is l(lViable at the rate of Rs. 0.64 per proof . litre. Condition 18(i) entitles the licensee to the refund of the pro-portionate part of the licence fee if there is shortfall in the supply of liquor to him but he is not entitled to any compensation or damages for the short supply. By Condition No. 24, the maximum price at which the spiced country liquor may be sold by the licensee is fixed at Rs. 10.00 per Quart, Rs. 5.25 per Pint and Rs. 2.7:5 per Nip.

The Town Hali Vend was auctioned on the basis of the fixed quota of 1,50,560 proof litres which is equivalent to 4,01,000 bottles per year. The Kailash Cinema Chowk Vend was auctionl:d on the basis of the fixed quota of 50,506 proof litres which is equivalent to 1,34,685 bottles per year.

The appellants deposited Rs. 1,41,708 for the Town Hall Vend and Rs. 50,091 for the Kailash Cinema. Chowk Vend being 1/24th of the licence fee required to be deposited by way of security. They were, however, unable to meet their obligations under the condiitions of auction and fell in arrears. The State Government demanded the payment, threatened to cancel the licences granted to the appellants and declared its intention to resell the vends tthe risk of the appel-lants.

On August 22, 1968 the appellants filed their writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. They prayed for three reliefs out of which only twc> were pressed at the hearing. They asked for direction quashing the auctions held on March 23, 1968 and secondly they asked that the respondents be restrained from enfom. ing the obligations aris.ing under the terms and i::om:litions of the auc-tions. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur, is the first respondent to the petition; the. Excise and Taxation Com-missioner Punjab, Patiala, is the second respondent; and the State of PunJab is the third respondent. The relief sought against the fourth respondent-a private firm-was not pressed.

Though several contentions-factual and legal were raised in the petitic'"'• the appellants restricted their challenge in: the High Court to the following points : -·-. ' '

(1) The Excise and Taxation Commissioner (who in the Pun.iab exercised the powers of Financial Com-missioner under the Act) had no jurisdiction to determine the method of disposal of the country liquor vends;

(2) The power conferred on the Financial Com-missioner under section 34 of the Act to grant licence, permit or pass on_]!IY,~nt....oLsuch fees, if .. ,my, as he may direct did-not extend to cli~osi,ng of the -coiiiltry liqu()r. vends by «iuctio~; · .... -:-;;··

(3) The impugned auctions conducted uader the amended Rule 36 on the basis of estimated quota in JJIOOf litres was in substance foµnded on the same system which had been struck down by the High . Court in Jage Ram's oase where it was held that the levy impost:4..Jbrongb-1he .. medium ol'aiictions ·~ tax . .;md nQtaJicence fee;

( 4) The State Government alone was competent to impose tax or an excise duty under the Act; that power could not be delegated to the Financial Com-missioner or any other officer.

(5) Section 34 of the.Act which empowered the Financial Commissioner to levy fees was not charging sec-tion; but if it is construed as containing delegation to him of the power of the state to levy taxes, no guidelines were laid down; and thus the delegation was excessive.

( 6) \r~ which could lle.J!!!nosed by the. Financial Comm1sSiO!iCr under Section 34 of the Act could bnly be.justified if it.had a...I.ll.a.§IDl!l~~e!aJi~!l}f-@i eryj.£~_r"'nclered to the licensei:s. 1t was !IDposei:l olely or maiiil:f for··rne 'purpose of collecting reve-ue, it was outside the ambit of Item 66 of List II of he Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. ~ mou'tlts._realised in the. auctions in the guise of.lic.eJ!.Ce feeLnI~ so .. exorbitant that they co~l<;i ng\ .. ~i,Q!y be _histified . """~~-.... ,,,,,_.,. ·under ... , ... ,.,.._.,_ iteni' ~ . .66 .

(7) The rule fixing the: maximum price at which licence could sell bottle of liquor was ultra vires of the rule--making powers of the Financial Commissioner under Section 59 of the Act.

The High Court negatived all of these contentions. It held that the State Legislature was competent to regulate the business of vend-G ing rotoxicating liquors, that various . provisions of. the Act showed that the State Government had the exclusive right to manufacture or sell intoxicants, that the Financial Commissioner had the jurisdiction to determine the method of disposal of country liquor vends, that the rules under which the impugned auctions were held are substantially different from th.ose under which the auctidt1S challenged in Jage Ram's case were held, that section 34 of the Act is not an instance of dele-H gated legislation and that the fixation of the maximum price of country liquor was part of the power to regula~e the trade in liquor. On the main contention that the levy in the snape of licence fee was un-constitutional, the High Court held that licences granted for regulating

trade in intoxicating liquors stand in class by themselves and that the consideration which govems licence fees charged in return for set vices rendered cannot apply to licences issued to the successful bidders at auctions of liquor vends. The High Court further held that Entry 66 in the State List is not confined to fees levied for ser-vic.::s rendered but extends to al! kinds of fees and therefore the im-position of the licence fee was within the ambit of that Entry.

Gefore us, the controversy was limited to the following contrn-lions :

I. The Financial Commissioner has no power to frame rules sc as to authorise the grant of liquor licences by holding au.ctions;

2. Under section 34 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, the Firnrticial Commissioner has no right to authorise the . levy or collection of any •amount which, strictly, is not fee; an auction bid for fixing 'fec.>' is contradiction in terms;

3. The licence fee bears no relationship with the services rendered to the licensees and is therefore not 'fee' in the true sease. Nor can the licence fee be justified as an 'excise duty' as it is not levied on the manufac-ture or production of liquor; 4. The real character of the levy imposed on licensees through the medium of -auctions is that it is in the nature of tax: and the Financial Commissioner who is an independent statutory authority haviag powers which arc di-;tinct and diffcrerit from those of the Government, has no authority to impose the tax; nor, indeed, has the State Government the power to impos·e suc:h tax.

5. The Government cannot under contract impose lc\y which it has ·,10 power to impose by law;

6. The new terms and conditions of aw.:tions are, basic:il!y and in substance. similar to those which were strncL down by the Punjab High Court in Jage Ram's ca;e and which decision w~s aftirmcd i'.i appeal by the Sup-reme Conrt; and

7. The demand made by the GoYernment for payment 01: large sums of money by hoteliers and bar-keepers wlm supply foreign liquor for consumption on their premises is arbitrary, without the authority of law and othcrwis~: illegal.

Learned counsel for the respondents raised prelill'inary objc:ction to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the appellatit; and to the grant of reliefs claimed by them. He contends that such of the appellants who offered their bids in the auctions did so with full knowledge of the terms and conditions attaching to the auctions and

HAk SHANKAR v.

they cannot by their writ petitions, be permitted to wriggle out of the contractual obligations •arising out of the acceptance of their bids. This objection is well-founded and must be accepted.

Those interested in running the country liquor vends' offered their bids voluntarily in the auctions held for granting licences for U1e sale of country liquor. The terms and conditions of auctions were announ-B ced before the auctions were held and the bidders participated i11 the auctions without demur und with full knowledge of the commitments ·..vhich the bids involved. The announcement Of condit10ns governing the auctions were in the nature of an invitation to an offer tu those who were interested in the sale of country liquor. The bids given in Lhe auctions were offers made by prospective vendors to the Govern-ment. The Government's acceptance of those bids was the acceptance of willing offers made to it. On such acceptance, the contract betwee1.1 Lhe bidders and the Government became concluded and . binding a2reement came into existence between them. The successful bidders were then granted licences evidencing the terms of contract between them and the Go'1ernment, under which they became entitled to sdl liquor. The licensees exploited the respective licences for portion of the period of their currency, presumably in expectation of profit. Commercial considerations may have revealed an error of ju'dgment in the inifral assessment of profitability of the adventure but that is normal incident of the tracljng transadions. Those who contract \~ i th open eyes must accept the burdens of the contract along with its h~nefits. The powers of the Financiql_ Commissioner to grant liquor licencees by auction and to collect licence fees through the medium of auctions connot by writ petitions be questioned by those who, had their venture succeeded, would have relied upon those very pow~rs to found legal claim. ·Reciprocal rights and obligations ari:;ing out of contract do not depend for their enforceability upon whether contracting party -finds it prudent to abide by the terms of the contract. By such test no contract could ever have binding force. .

ln Lekhraj Satramdas La/vani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer & Ors.([1]), the appellant who was removed from the manager-ship ef certai•a evacuee properties filed petition in the ,Kcrala High Court under Article 226 of ·tire' Constitution praying for writ of mJndamus against the Deputy Custodian and others. This Court held that the appellant's appointment was coutractual in its na~ure and· the duti-~s or obligations arising out of contract could not be enforced by the machinery of writ under f\.rticle 226.

There was some discussion before us as to whether FunJamental Rights could be waived and in answer to the preliminary contention cf the r.espondents it was urged on bel"i"alf of the appellants that they nre entitled to enforce their fundamental rights, no matt r whether they agreed to waive those rights while entering into contraCLS with the Government. In support of the contention that the1e can be no· wai .·e:· of fundamental rights, reliance was placed by the appdlants on the well-known decision of this Court in Basheshar Nath v. Tlte Com-missioner of Income-Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan & Anr. (').

(I) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 120.

(2) [1959] Supp. l S.C.R. 528.

The writ petitions filed by the appellants in the High Court are ·wholly directed to showing that the Financial Commissioner lacked the power to grant liquor licences through auctions and to levy through the medium of auctions sum which was not 'fee' in the stric:t sease ·Of the term. The two reliefs which the appellants asked for in the writ petitions are that the •auctions held by the Government for granting liquor licences and the bids offered therein by the prospective lkensees should be quashed and secondly that direction should be 1ssued to the respondents restraining them from e.;iforcing the obligations arising unC:er the bids. It is interesting that except in the title of the petition showing that it was filed "Under Article 226 of the C<ms'.itction of India", the rnpresentative Writ Petition (No. 2646 of 1968) does not even refer to so much as 11ny provision of the Constitution, much less to the infringement of any Constitutional rights. Apart from this, in the view whi.ch we a.re disposed to take o•a the main contention, no· ·question of the waiver of "fundamental right" can arise.

The appellants objected to the preliminary contention of the re~pondents on the ground that in their counter affidavit filed in the High Court, respondents had not pleaded that there was any contract between the parties or that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was inappropriate for the enforcement of contractual rights. This :summission overlooks the matnial averments contained in the res-pondents' counter aflidavit. This is what the respondent say : _

"The allegatia,1s with respect to the policy arc not rek-vant inasmuch as the petitioner's liability arises from the terms and conditions of the Excise contract granted in his favour.

"I further submit that the petitioners voluntarily and of their own free volition offered themselves as bidders at the time of auction. Th.: petitioners were aware of the business that they were likely to do as result of grant of licence iin their favour. Since theirs was the highest bid they were also 11ware of the cost that they were likely to incur for obtaining bottle of country liquor."

"I submit that the ".Onditions regarding the sale price of country liquor were duly announced before the commence-ment of the auction of the vend. Th.:l petitioners gave bid -0f their ·own accord knowing all the implications thereof. The petitioners having taken the licence with open eyes and understanding the law on the subject have no cause of action. No constitutional provision has been infringed."

Towards the end of the counter affidavit it is stated that the appel-lants had made contradictory allegations "with view to confusing the real issue in an attempt to wriggle out of their contractual obligations." It is thus clear that in the High Court, the respondents had raised the ·contention which is taken before us by their counsel in the form of preliminary objection.

On the preliminary objection it was· finally urged by the appellants that the objection was misconceived because there was, in fact, no

contract between the parties and therefore they were not attempting: to enforce any co';1tractual rights or to wriggle out of contractual obli-gations. The short answer to this contention is that the bids. given by the appellants constitute offers and upon their acceptance by the Government binding agreement caI)le into existe,1ce between the parties. The conditions of auction become the terms of the contract and it is on those terms that licences are granted to the successful bidders in Form L. 14-A of the Rules. As sl'ated in Cheshire and Fifoot's 'Law of Contract' (Eighth Ed., 1972; P. 24),

"In order to determine whether, in ~my given case, it is reasonable to infer the existence of an agreement, it has long been usual to employ the language of offer and acceptance. In other words, the court examines all the circumsi;ances to see if the one party may be assumed to have made firm "offer" and if the other may likewise be taken to have "accepted" that offer. These complemeatary ideas present convenient method of analysing situation, provided that they are not applied too literally and that facts are not sacri-ficed to phrases."

AnaJ:'sing the situation here, concluded contract must be held to have come into existence between the parties. The appellants have displayed ingenuity in their search for invalidating circumstances b11t writ petition is not an appropriate remedy.for impeaching contractual obligations. · In Civil Appeals Nos. 485 and 2205 of 1969, filed respectively by Northern India Caterers (P) Ltd., and M/s. Green Hotel, Bar antl Res-taurant and Others, the appellants hold licences in Form Nos. L-3, L-4 and L-5 for the retail vead of foreign liquor in hotel, restaurant and in bar attached to restaurant. No auctions were held i:or granting these licences and therefore the reasoning that acceptance of bids brought into existence concluded contract between the successful bidders and the Governme•at will not apply to the cases of these appellants. But they alsO accepted . the licences subject to the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956. By section 34 of the Act licence under Lhe Act has to be granted, inter alia, on payment of such fees and subject to such restrictions and on such conditions as the Financial Com-missioner may direct. Section 59(d) of the Act confers power on the Financial Commissioner to make rules prescribing the scale 0£ , fees in respect of any licence. Rule 24 provides that the fees payable in respect of licences shall be either (a) fixed fees or (b) assessed fees or (c) auction fees. By amendments made on February 22, 1968 a•,1d March 30, 1968, the fixed fees were substantially enhanced and the· appellants were called upon to pay those fees. Just as country liquor contractors offered bids voluntarily on terms and conditions governing the auctidas, so in these two appeals the appellants voluntarily applied for and accepted the licences knowing fully well that the Financial Commissioner had the power to frame rules governing the licences. Whether the amendment~ made to the Rules after the appellants' licen-ces were renewed are applicable is another matter but the appellants cannot questiO't1 the power of the Financial Commissioner to frame·.those rules. The licences, in large measure, owe their existence and -validity to the rule-making power of the Financial Commissione·r. One of the reliefs which the appellants ask for is that Rules 27 A, 30 -and 31 be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional and consequeatly the respondents be directed to refund the assessed fees already recovered. By attempting to t:xploit the licences without the burden of asses-;ed ~ originally attaching to them under the rules framed by the. Finan-Cial. Commissioner, the appellants are seeking to work the lict:nces on such terms as they find convenient.. The writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended 10 facili-tate avoidance of obligations voluntarily incurred. That, however will net estop the appeHants from co•atending that the amended Rules are not applicable as their licences were renewed before the amendments were made.

Though this is the true position, we do not propose to dism;ss the appeals on the narrow ground that the reliefs, or some of them, sought by the app~llants cannot be awarded in the writ petitions brought by fr.cm. We have heard the appeals fully and since the poi.its involved are of general public importance, we would like to deal with the appeals on merits.

The main and the real focus of controversy is the power of the Government to levy and realise large licence fees either through the medium of auctions or on scales fixed under the rules. The countrv liquor contractors offered incredibly high bids in the auctioa;" which on the whole netted revenue of rupees twentynine odd crorcs to the State Government. Licensees like the Northern India Caterers and M/s. Green Hotel who run hotels, restaurants or bars were asked under the ame'aded rules to pay, besides assessed fees, fixed fei::s vary-ing between Rs. 7500 and Rs. 20,000 for the year. Apprehending that. it was fruitless to do business on these terms and fearing the resort by the Government to coercive meoasures for the recovery of tT1e amounts clue to it, thi~ appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court soon after the commenceme'.1t of the term of their respective licences.

Liquor licensing has long history. Prior to the passing of the Indian Constitution, the licensees mostly restricted their challenge to the demands of the Government as being in excess of the conditions of the licence or C'.1 the ground that the rules in pursuance of whkh such conditions were framed were themselves beyond the rule-making power of the authority concerned. Thi~ conflict took new shape after the enactment of the Constitution. The challenge now is generally based on the ground that there is no quid pro quo betweea the fees imposed on the licensees andl the services rendered to them; that the fees are in the nature of tax which there is no authority to impose; that the levy is beyond the legislative competence of the State Government; or that the terms and conditions of the licence constitute a'a unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the citizen to carry on business for the soale of, liquor. The appeals before us require consideration of both sets of points.

The provisions of the Punjab Excise Act 1914, like the provisions .of similar Acts in force ia other States, reflect the nature and the

width of the power which the State Governments are empowered to exercise in the matter of liquor licensing. We will notice first the relevfot provisions of the Act under consideration.

Section 5 of the Act empowers the St&te Government to regulate the; maximum or minimum quantity of any i•atoxicant which may be so1d by retail or wholesale. Section 8 (a) vests the general superinten-B dance and administration oi' all matters relating to excise in the Finan-cial Commissioner, subject to the control. of the State Governm~nt. SectiO'.i 16 provides that no intoxicant shall be imported, exported or . transported except after payment of the necessary duty or execution of bond for such payment and in compliance with such conditions as the State Government may impose. Section 17 confers upon the State Government the power to prohibit .the import or export of any intoxicant into or from Punjab or any part thereof and to prohibit the transport of any intoxicant. By section 20(1) no intoxicant can be manufactured or collected, no hemp plant can be cultivated, no tmi-producing- tree can be tapped, no tari can be drawn from a•ay tree and no person can possess any material or ?.pparatus for manufacturing an intoxicant other than tari except under the authority and subject to the terms and CO'aditions of licence granted by the Collector. By sub-section (2) of section 20 no distillery or brewery can be construct-ed or worked except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of licence granted by the Fraancial Commissioner. Sec-tion 24 provides that no person shall have in his possession any intoxi-cant in excess of such quantity as the State Government declares to he the limit of retail sale, except under the authority and in aceorda'iJCe with the terms and conditions of licence or permit. Sub-section ( 4) of section 24 empowers the State Government to prohibit the posses-sion of any intoxicant or restrict its possession by imposing such conditions as it may prescribe. · Sectio'.1 26 prohibits the sale of liquor except under the authority and subject to the terms and condifons of licence granted in that behalf.

Section 27 of 'the Act empowers the State Government to "lease" on such conditions and for such period as it may deem fit or retail, any country liquor or hltoxicating drug within any specified local area. On such lease being granted the Collector, under sub-section (2), has to grant to the lessee licence in the form of his lease.

Section 34 (1) of th~ Act provides that every licence, permit or pass under the Act shall be granted (a) on payment of such fe.~s, if any, (b) subject to such restrictions and on such conditions, ( c) in such form and containing such particulars, and ( d) for such period as the Financial Commissioner may direct. By section 35 (2), before any licence is granted for the retail sale of liquor for consumption on any premises the Collector has to ascertain local public opi,1iOn in regard to the licensing of such premises. Section 36 confers power on the authority granting any licence to cancel or suspend it if, inter alia, any duty or fee payable thereon has not been, duly paid.

Section 56 of the Act empowers the State Governmeat to exempt any intoxicant from the provisions of the Act. By section 58 the State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying out

•he provi&ions of this Act. Section 59 empowers the Fin;ancial Com-missioner by clause (a) to regulate the manufacture, supply,. storage or r.ale of any intoxicant. By clause (d) of section 59 the Financial Commissioner is authorised to. make rules "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." Section 60(1) provides that "all excise revenue", any loss that may accrue, by reascm of the resaie of grant and all amounts due to the Govern-ment on account of any contmct relating to the excise revenue may be recovered by any prrn:ess for the recovery of arrears of land revenue.

In pursuance of section 59(d) the Excise and Taxation Commi-ssioner on whom the powers of the Financial Commission.er are con-ferred by the State Government framed the Punjab Liquor Lfoence Rules, 1956. Since the appellants !rave challenged the legality of some of thesf~ rufos and as the rules also indicate the large rowers which are attempted to be exercised under the Act, it is essentia to set out the relevant rules.

Rule 1 contains Table which is divided into six parts," the first two of which are call1~d "Foreign Liquor" and "Country Spirit". The cmsses of licences, th(~ir mode of grant imd the authorities who can grant and renew the licences are specified in the Table. Part I of the Table dealing with Foreign Liquor refers, inter alia, to licences in Form L-3, L-4 and L-5 which relate rnspectively to (i) retail vend of foreign liquor in hotel or dak bungalow, (ii) retail ven.d of foreign liquor in restaurant and (iii) retail vend of foreign liquor in bar attached to restaurant. Northern India Caterers (P) Ltd., :md M/s. Green Hotel, .Bar .and Restaurant, who are appellants in Civil Appeals No. 485 and 2205 of 1969 respectively hoM. licences in Form Nos. L-3, L-4 and L-5. The Collector is desig1_1ated as the authority to grant and renew these licences.

Prior to March 22, 1968 licences i:,1 Forms L-3, L-4 and L-5 used to be granted on assessed fees only as provided in Rule 28. The assessed fees were quantified in accordance with scale of fees pres.crib-ed under Rules 30 and 31. The scale of fees was raised in 1965 by Notification dated April 15, 1965. Under the revised rates the following fixed fees were prescribed.

Under the revised rates the

<?n March .2~, 1968 the second respondent (the Excise and Taxa-tion Comm1Ss1oner) issued notification in the exercise of powers conferred by section 59 of the Act whereby new Rule 30 was substi-tuted for the old Rule 30. By this notificati0'11, the Table under Rule 1 was amended so as to provide for the levy of both 'Fixed Fee' and

Assessed Fee' on those licences. Under the new Rule 30 the licensees in Forms L-3, L-4 and L-5 became liable to pay, in addition to assessed fees, fixed annual fees at the following rates : .

The amendments made by this notification arc called ''the Pu,1jab Liquor Licence (First Amendment) Rules, 1968.''1

On M·arch 30, 1968 another notification was ir:ou JJ by the second respondent introducing the Punjab Liquor Licend (Sewad Amend-ment) Ruks, l968. Under these rules new rule-rule 27 .. A--was introduced whereby licensees in Forms L-3, L-4 and L-5 became liable to pay fixed annual fee of Rs. 10,000. The second part of the Table under ·Rule I. which dea:s with country spirit, refers, :•,1ter aiia, to licences in Form L-14-A for "Retail vend of country spirit for consumption off the premises". Barring the two appellants referred to above the other appellants ho!J licences in Form L-14-A. The Table describes the mode of grant or the licence as by "Auction". Rule 36 prescrib~s the procedure for the grant of licences by auc-tion. Before the annual auctio'.1s are held the Collector is required to determine the quantum of probable sales during the pc1 iod for which the licence is to be auctioned. The quota of country liquor thus fixed for each vend is then to be ar:.nounced by the Collector bcforr the vend is put to auction. The notice of auction has to spe-F cify, among other things, the conditions to which the auction is sub-je·ct and the prices for retail vend of country Liquor. Pule 23 provides for the payment of security depos:t and Ruic 24 for f''e resale of liccnc~ on the can•;ellation of an exis•ing licence. The conditions of auction which we have set out at the beginning of our iw:lgment arc in fact in .terms of the rules framed under section 59 ( d) of the r\ct.

The Prohibition and Excise L>aws in force in other States c,;ntain provisions substantially similar to those contained in the Punjab Excise Act. Several Acts passed by State Legi.slatures watain provisions rendering it unlawful to manufacture exoort, import. transport 01·-scll intoxicating liquor except in accordance with l!cenc:~. permit or pass granted in that behalf. The Bombay Abkari Act 1878: the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949; th~ Bengal Exci5e Acts cf i 878 and 1909; the Madras Abkari Act 1886; the Laws and Rules. contained in th~ Excise Manual United Province. the Eastern Bcrnrnl and Assam Excise Act 1910; the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act 1915· the . 3-423SCI\75 ,

Cochin Abkari Act as amended by the Kerala Abkari Laws Act 1964; and the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act 1915, are instances of State legislations by which extensive powers are conferred on the State Government in. the matter of liquor licensing.

The power of the State Government under sectiaa 17 of the Act to prohibit absolutely the import, export or transport of any intoxicant; its power under section 20 to prohibit the manufacture or collection of an intoxicant or the construction or working of distillery or brewery except under the authority and subject to the terms a:ad conditions of licence grant·ed in that behalf, its power under section 24(4) to prohibit the possession of any intoxicant; and its power under section 27 to lease on such conditions and for such period as it may deem fit, the right of manufacturing, supplying or selling an intoxicant are only in conformity with the ancient and hoary rights which all gove:rn-ments in all countries have exercised in matters concerning intoxicants. The rationale of such rights has been explained in several cases to some of which we many now refer.In Cooverjee B. Bharucha vs. The Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer & Ors.,(') it was contended that the citizen had an unfettered right to carry on trade and business in liquor under Article J 9 ( 1) (g) of the Constitution and therefore the pro-visions of the Ajmer Excise Regulation I of 1915 which conferred discretion on the Excise Commissioner to restrict the number of liquor shops and to lice~e them by auction to the highest bidder were void as creating monopoly in liquor trade. The recovery of large licence fees through public auctions was also attacked on the ground that the amount was not fee but was in the nature of tax and the same could not be recovered by recording to legislative powers saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

Mahajan CJ., delivering the unanimous judgment of Constitution Bench observed.

"It can also not be denied that the State has the power to prohibit trades which are illegal or immoral er injurious to the health and welfare of the public. Laws prohibiting trades in noxious or dangerous goods or traffickrag in women cannot be held to 1,Je illegal as enacting prohibition and not mere regulation."

T:iis position was not disputed but is was urged that the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail in small quantities should be without restriction because every person had right which inherred ia him, that is, natural right to carry on trade in intoxicating liquors and that the Srate had no right to create monopoly in them. This conten-tion was repelled on the reasoning contained in the judgment of Field J. in Crowley vs. Christensen(') Field J. observed :

"There is in this position an assumption of fact which does not exist, that when the liquors are taken in excess the .. - -· ---------(!) [1954] S.C.R. 87.l. (2) 31 L1w. Ed, 620, 623,

injuries are confinetl to the party offe_11ding. The injury, it· is true, first falls upon him in his health, which the habit undermines; in his morals, which it weake•as; and in the self-abasement which it creates. But as it leads to neglect of business and waste of property and general democratisation, it affects those who are immediately wanected with and de-pendent upon him. By the general concurrence of opinion of every civilized and Christian community, there are kw sources of crime and misery to society equal to the <lram shop, where intoxiC'ating liquors, in small quantities, to be drunk at the time. are sold indiscrimr,rntely to all parties applying. The statistics of every State show greater amount of crime and misery attributable to the use of ardent spirits obtained at these retail liquor saloons than to any other source. The sale of such liquors in this way has, therefore, been, at all times, by the courts of every State, considercti as the proper subject of legislative regulation. Not only may licence be exacted from the keeper of the saloon before glass of his liquors can be thus disposed of, but restrictions may be imposed as to the class of persons to whom they may be sold, and the hours of the day, and the days of the week on which the saloons may be opened. Their sale in that form may be absolutely prohibited. It is question of public expediency and public morality, and not of federal law. The police power of the State is fully competent to regulate the business-to mitigate its evils or to suppress it entirely. Their is nc inherent right in citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail, it is not privilege of citizen of the State or of citizen of the United States. As it is business attended with danger to the community, it may, as already said, be entirely prohibited, or be permitted under such conditions as will limit to the utmost its evils. The manner and extent of regulation rest in the discretion of the !;OVerning authority. That authority may vest in such officers as it may deem proper the power of passing upon applica-tions. for permission to carry it on, and to issue licences for that purpose. It is matter of legislative will only."

After citing this pass-age the learned Chief Justice said : "These observation~ have. our entire concurrence and they completely negative the content~on raised on behalf of the petitioner. The. provisions of the Regulat10ns purport to regulate trade in liquor to all its the different spheres and are valid."

The. contention that the effect of some of the provisions of the Regulation was to enable Government to confer monopoly rights on one or more persons to the exclusion of others and that the creation of such monopoly rights could not be sustained under Article 19(6) was repelled on the ground that: ·

. "Elimination and exclusion from business is inherent in the nature of liquor business and it will hardly be proper

business is inherent

to apply to such business principles applicable to fra~es which all coul\:I carry. The provisions of the regulat10n cannot be attacked merely on the ground that they create monopoly. Properly speaking, there can be monopoly only when trade which could be carried on by all persons is entrusted by law to one or more persons to the exclu-sion of the general public. Such, however, is not the case with the business of liquor."

Lastly, the argument that the fees recovered by public auction were excessive was rejected on the ground that one ot the purpos~s of the Regulations was to raise revenue, th::.t the lice.nee fee though discribed as 'fee' was more in the nature of. tax, that revenue could be collected by the grant ·of cont:·acts to carry on trade in . uquors and that these contracts could be sold by auction.

In State of Assam v. N. l\.idwai, Co111missio11e.r of· Hills Dil'i· si1J/l and Appeals, Shillong,( 1) Das C.J., speaking for Constitution B1?nch, observed while rejecting clnllenge to some of the provisions of Assam Act No. 4 of 1948, that perusal of the Act and the rnles framed thereunder made it clear that : "no person has any absolute right to sell liquor and that the purpose of the Act and the rules is to control and restrict the consumption of intoxicating liquors, such con-trol and restriction being obviously necessary for the pre-servation of public health \tnd morals. and to raise revenue."

In The State of Bombay and Anr. v. F. N. Baisara,(2) the cons-titutional validity of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was challeng, eel. On the question of legislative competence of the State legisfa, ture to enact the statute, reliance was placed upon entry I of List II which relates to "Public Order". Faz! Ali J., speaking for Consti-tution Bench, observed that though at first sight it may appear to be far-fetched to bring the subject of intoxicating liquor under "Public. Order" yet it had to be noted that there was tendeni~y in Europe and America to regard alconotism as menace to public order. The learned Judge then referred to th~ decision in Russel vs. Thi' ·Queen.(3) in which the C~n~<la Trmµcrance Act, 1878, was hdd to be law relating to the "peace. order, and good Government" of Canada. Reference was al<o invited to be passage in The Enc.y, ~lopaedia Brit7nnica, 14th Edition, Vol. 14, page 191. to the fo'low-rng effect :-.

'The dominant motive everywhere, however, has been social one, to combat menance to public order and the incrcning evils of alcoholism in the interests of health and social welfare. The evils vary greatly from one country to another according to differences in climate diet economic ' [l957J S.C,R. 295. S.C,R. 295. 295. (2J [1951] S.C.R. 682.

(I) [l957J S.C,R. 295. S.C,R. 295. 295.

(J! 7 A.C. 829.

conditions and even within the same country according to difference_s in habits, social customs and standards of pub-lic morality. new factor of growing importance since the m1C1d1e ot the 19th century has been the rapid urbanisa-tion, industrialization, and mechanization of our modern every day life in the leading nations of the world, and the ..:onseq-uent wider recognition of the advantages of sobriety m safeguarding public order and physical efficiency:·

This passage was treated as lending some support to the contention of the State Government that the Prohibiton Act fell within the sub-1ect of "Public Order" but the matter was not pursued further as tnt: particular entry had remote bearing on the object and scope or the Act

In Nage11drc.i Nath Bora & A11r. v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, and Ors.(1) the decisions in CooverJee case and Kidwai's case were cited by Constitution Bench as laying down the proposition that there was no inherent right in: citizen to sell liquor and that the control and restriction over the consumption 0 of intoxicating liquors was necessary for the preservation of public health and inorals and to raise revenue.

In Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Govern-ment of Tripura & Ors.,([2 ]) Constitution Bench of this Court had to consider the question whether section 43 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 unaer which the licence of liquor contractor was withdrawn, violated Articles 14 and 19( I) (g) of the Constitution. The conten-tion in regard to the violation of Article 14 was repelled by this Court with the observation :

"Trade or business in country liquor has from its "inhe-rent nature been treated by the State and the society as special category requiring legislative control which has b~en 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 shall be treated as class by itself and it cannot be treated on the same basis as other trades while considering Art. 14."

The contention as regards the violation of Articl~ ~ 9 was rejected. on the ground that in dealing with -reasonable restncl!ons ~o abs tr act standard or general pattern could be laid down and that m each case regard had to be had to the nature of trade or business ~nd the other circumstances. In the case of country liquor, acco~dmg to ~he Court, due weight had to be given to the increasing evils of excessi~e consumption of country liquor in the interests of health and socrnl welfare. For ............... ·

(2) [1973] I S.C.R. 533.

(1 [1958]-S.C.R- 1240.

"Principles applicable to trades which all persons carry on free from regulatory controls do not apply to tr.ade or business iilJ country liquor, this is so because of the im-pact of the trade on society due to its inherent nature." These unanimous d1~cisions of five Constitution Benches uniform-ly emphasised after careful consideration of the problem involved that the State has the power to prohibit traldes which are injurious to the health and welfare of the public, that elimination and exclusion from the business is inherent in the nature of liquor business, that no person has an absolute right to deal in liquor and that all forms of dealings in liquor have, from their inherent nature, been treated as class by themselves by all civilised communities. The contention that the citizen had either natural or fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor thus stood rejected.

But, in spite of the weight of this authority, Constitution Bench struck different note in Krishna Kumar Naru/a etc. vs. The State of Jamnw and Kashmir & Ors.(1) The appellant therein who was doing business in liquor in hotel, un\.ier an annual licence issued under the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act, 1958, challenged an order of the Excise an:d Taxation Commissioner asking him to shift the licensed premises to some other approved locality. Four contentions were raised in that case on behaif()f the appellant, the first of which was that if section 20 of the Act of 1958 was construed as conferr:ing an absolute discretion on the Excise and Taxation. Commissioner in the matter of granting licences to do business in liquor, it was void on the ground that it infringe\:! Article 19 of the Constitution. This point was not allowed to be ra.ised in this Court on the ground that the cons-titutional validity of section 20 was not challenged in the High Court. It would, however, appear that the learned Judges of the High Court had differed on the question whether the appellant had fundamental right to do busin2ss in liqucr and this Court desired "to make the posi-tion clear" in order to "avoid further confusion in the matter". The de'cisions in Cooverjee's case, Kidwai's case and Nagcndra l'\ath's c2.se wcr.: cited before the Court but it took the view ~that they did not support the. contention that dealing in liquor was not business or trade or thM nght to do business in liquor was not fundamental right. Subha Rao C.J. speaking for the Court expressed the conclusion thus:"We, therefor.;:. hold that dealing in liquor is business and citizen has right to do business in the commoditv· hut the Sta:e can make law imposing reasonable restric~ tion~ on the said right, in public interests."

Since, ~owever, .the constitutional validity of section 20 was not chaI-leng.ed m th~ H1~~h Court, this Court assumed without decidinl!: that ··----sect10n (1) [1967) 3 20 --did SC.R~ not infringe Artide 5~. 19 (1) ( ..., g) . ~

In 1he State of Bombay vs. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwa/a,(I) one of the contention raised was that the restrictions imposed by the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competition Control and Tax Act, 1948, 011 the tnl\:le or business of the respondents contravened the fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. lt was ur_gcd that even if the prize competitions constituted gambling transactions they were nevertheless trade or business activities. On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the State of Bombay that as prize competitions were opposed to' public policy there could be no trade or business of promoting prize competition and therefore the questi011 of infraction of the respondents' fundamental right under Article 19 ( 1) (g) did not arise. This contention was 'described by the Court as raisin£ question "of very far-reaching nature'". Speak-ing for the Constitution Bench, Das C.J. after examining several Australian and American cases observed : ··we have no doubt that there are certain activities which can under no circumstances be regarded as trade or business or commerce although the usual forms and instruments are employed therein. To exclude those activities from the meaning of those words is nohto cut down their meaning <L .ill but to say only that they are not within the true meaning of those words." ·

Referring to the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV of the Constitution the ka1:ned Chief Jilstice posed the question whether the Constitution-makers who set up such an ideal of wel-E fare State could possibly have intended to elevate betting and gambling to the level of country's trade or business or commerce and to guaran-tee tc its citizens. the ri~ht to carry on the same. ft .vas said that "ther<: 2an be only one answer to the question" and the answer was that !he prize competition being of gambling nature could not be re.garded as tra\:le or commerce and therefore the respondents could not claim any fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) in respect of such competitions. It was observetl : '

··rt will be abundantly clear from the foregoing observa-tions that the activities which have been condemned in this oountry from ancient times appear to have been equally dis-corn-c1.ge'd and looked upon with disfavour in England, Scot-la:1d, the United States of America and in Australia in the cases referred to above. We find it difficult to accept the contention that those activities which encourage spirit of reckless propensitv for making easy .gain by lot or chance. whidi lead to the loss of the hard earned money of the un-discerning and improvident common man and thereby lower his standard of living and drive him into chronic state of indebtedness and .eventua!lv disrunt the peace and hanpiness of his humble home could possiblv have been intended. by our Constitution makers to be raised to the status of

(1) [19571 S.C.R. 874.

trade, commerce or intercourse and to be made the ~ubiect matter ot fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19( l)(g). We find it difficult to persuade ourselves that gamb1mg was ever intended to form any part of this ancient countrv s trade, commerce or intercourse to be declai;ed as free under Art. 301. It is not our purpose nor is it neces-sary for us in deciding this case to attempt an exhaustive definit.on of the word "tra\:le", "business", or "intercourse''. We are, however, clearly of opinion that whatever else may or may not be regarded as falling within the meaning of these words, gambling cannot certainly be taken as one of them. We are convinced and satisfied that the real purpose of Arts. 19 (1) ( g) and 301 could not possibly have been to guarantee or declare the freedom of gambling. Gambling activities from their very nature and in essence are extra-commercium although the external forms, formalities and instruments 0f trade ·may be employed and they are not protected either by Art. 19(1 )(g) or Art. 301 of our Consti-tution."·

This dec'sion was also cited before the Court in Krishna Kumar's 1case but it said : "This decision only lays down that gambling is not business or trade. We are not concerned in this case with gambling''. With great respect, the reasons mentione<l by Das C.J. for holding that there can b<! no fundamental right to do trade or business irn an activity like gambling apply with equal force to the alleged right to trade in liquor and those reasons may not be brushed aside by restrict-ing them to gambling operations.

In State of Orissa and Ors. v. Harinarayan Jaiswal and Ors .. (1) the highest bidder in an auction held for granting the exclusive p1rivi-lege of selling country liquor filed writ petition to challenge an order rejecting his bid. It was contended that the power retained by the Government to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason was an arbitrary power and was violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. After referring to the decisions in Cooveriee's case and Krishna Kumar Narula's case it was observed that one of the important purposes of selling the exclusive right to vend liquor was to raise revenue and since the Government had the power to sell exclusive privileges there was no basis for contending that the owner of the privileges could not decline to accept the highest bid if he thought that the price offered was inadequate. Hegde J., speaking for the Division Bench observed : ~

"The fact that the Government was the seller does not change the legal position once its exclusive right to deal with those privileges is concetled. Wthe Government is the ex-clusive owner of those privileges, reliance on Art. 19(1) (g) or Art. 14 becomes irrelevant. Citizens cannot have any

-(!) [1972]38.C:. R. 784.

fundamental right to trade or carry on business in the· pro-perties or rights belonging to the Governme.nt nor can there b~ any ·intnugement ot Art. 14, it the Government tries to get the best available price for its valuable rights."

ln recent judgment delivered on November 27,. 1974 (Nashirwar e1c. vs. State OJ Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeals Nos. 1711-B 1721 and 1723 of 1974) it was held on review of various authori-ties including the decision in Krishna Kumar Narula's case that the State had the exclusive right or privilege of tnanufacturing and selling liquor, that it had the power to hold pub.lie auction for granting the right or privilege to sell liquor, that traditionally intoxicating liquors were the subject-matter of State monopoly and· that there was no fundamental right in citizen to carry on trade or business in liquor. One of us, the learned Chief Justice, observed while speaking on behalf of the 3-Judge Bench that : ."l)1ere are three principal reasons to hold that there is no fundamental right of citizens to carry on trade or to do business in liquor. First, there is the police power ot the State to enforce public morality to prohibit trades in noxious or dangerous goods. Second, there is power of the State to enforce an absolute prohibition of manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor. Article 4 7 states 'that th~ State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the con-sumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. Third, the history of excise law shows ih3t the State has the exclu-IE .sive right or privilege of manufacture or sale of liquor."

Jn our opinion, the true position governing dealings in intoxicants -is as stated and reflected in the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in· Balsara's case, Cooverjee's case, Kidwai's case, Nagendra Nath"s case;· Amar Chakraborty's case and the R.M.D.C. case. as in-terpreted in Harinarayan J aiswal's case and Nashirwar's case. · There is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants. The State, under its regulatory pnwers, has me nght to prohlbit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants-its manufacture. storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifesta-tions, these rights. ar~ vested in the. State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various forms· of acti-vities in te)au.on til ul1Q):l<;llnts. Jn "American Jurisprudence", Volume 30 it is stated that while engaging in liquor traffic is not inhe-rently lawful, nf"vertheless it is privil.e.ge . and no.t. tjght. ~ to governmental con_trol. (page. 538). This power of control is an inci-dent of the society's right to self-protection and it rests upon the right o~ the State to care for the health, morals and welfare of the people. Liquor traffic is source of pauperism and crime. (pp. 539. 540, 541) . . It was unnecessary in Krishna Kumar Narula's case to examine the 9uestion from this broader point of view, as the only contention bearmg on the constitutional validity of the provision impugned

therein was not permitted to be raised as it was not argued in the High Court. The dis1~ussion of the question whether citizen has fundamental r:ight to do trade or business in liquor proceeded in that case, mowedly, from desire to clear the confusion arising from the 'different views" expressed by the two Judges of the High Court. This may explain why the Court restricted its final conclusion . to holding that dealing in liquor is business and the citizen has right to do business in that commodity. The court did not say, though such nn implication mav arise from its conclusion. that the citizen has fundamental right to do trade or business in liquor. If we may repeat, Subba Rao J. sai'd :

"W c, therefore, hold thut dealing in liquor is business and ~1 citizen has right to do business in that commodity; but the State can make law imposing reasonable restric·· tions on the said right. in public interests."

It is significant that the judgment in Krishna Kumar Narula's case does not negat·e the right of the State to prohibit absolutely all forms of activities in relation to intoxicants. The wider right to prohibit absolutely would include the narrower right to permit dealing in intoxicants on such terms of general application as the State d<:ems expedient. Since rights in rega;d to intoxicants belong to the State, it is opcn to the -Government to part with those rig~ts for consideration. By Article 298 of the Constitution, the execuyve power of the St~te extends to the carrying on of uny trade or bu~mess and to the makmg of contracts for· any purpose. As observed in Harinarayan Jaiswal's case. "if the Government" is the exclusive owner. of those privileges, reliance on Article 19 (I )( g) or Article 141 becomes irrelevant. Citi-zem cannot have any fundamental right to trade or carry on business in the properties or rights belonging to the Government, nor can there be any infringemmt of Article I 4, if the Government tries to get the best available price for i:R v•1luable rights.'' Section 27 of the Act recognises the right of the Governm'ent to grant l~s~. of its right to ma.wlfu<;;ure .s.upply or sell intoxicants. Section 34 of the Act r1:ad with section 59 ( d) empowers the Financial Commissioner to direct that licence, permit or pa<s be granted under the Act on payment of such fees and subieC't to such restrictions and on such conditions us he may prescribe. \•Tn such scheme, it is not of' the essence whe-ther the amount ch<'l'!!ecl to the licensees is pre.-c:letermined as in the appe<lls of Northern Tnclin Caterers and of Green Hotel or whether it is left to be determined bY bids offered in auctions held for granting those right~ to licenser~. Tlv oower of the Government to' charg~ _nric; for oartim'. witli its rights and· not the mode of fixing th~t once 1s whnt constitutes the es<ence of the matter. Nor indeed does the label ~ffixrd to th<' nrice determine either the true natu.e of the char!):e leY1ed hv the Government or its right to levy the same.

Tlie distinct;on which th· Constitution makes for legislative pur-poses ~etween 'tax' and 'fee' and th~ c;harac;teristic of these two

as also of 'excise duty' are well-known. "A tax is compulsory exac-tion of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable. by Jaw and is not paymept for services rendered". (I) fee is a. charge for special services rendered to individuals by some governmen~ ta! agency and such charge has an element in it of quid pro quo.(2} Excise duty is primarily a; duty on the production or manufacture of goods produced. or manufactured within the country([3]). The amounts ·~harged to the licensees in th~ instant case are, evidently, neither natur(! of tax nor excise duty. But then, the 'Licence fee' which the Sta:e.g0vernment charged to the licensees thtougl'f The medii.lm 61' mic-tions or the 'Fixed fee' which rt c1ra~ lO the vendors of foreig11 liquor tiofdiilglicences in Forms L-3, L-4 and L-5 need bear no quid pro quo to the services rendered to the licencees. The word 'fee' is not used in the Act or the R;u!es in the ·technical sense 'of the expressioru By 'lic.ence fee' or 'fixed fee' is meant the price or consideration which the Govei'n!'ll.ent charges to the licensees for parting with its privileges and granting them to the licensees. As the State can carry on trade or ·business, such charge is the normal incident of trading; or business transaction.

While on this question, we may with advantage cite passage from "American Jurisprudence" (Vol. 30 pages 642, 645) which is based. on the decisions Gu11dling vs. Chicago, (~) Phillips vs. Mobile ([5]) and Richard vs. Mobile ([6 ]) It says :

"the familiar principle that the imposition of license· fees on. useful and honourable occupations· must not exceed the cost of issuing the license, plus the expense of inspecting and regulating the business licensed. . . . . . . . is not neces-sarily applicable to the liquor license. The liquor ·traffic is not something which is licensed for the purpose of promoting it. Indeed, licen~e fees may be exacted in amounts intended to discourage participation in the business. The courts have quite generally refused to hoFd that the license fee imposed, merely because it is large. is tax, where the object is no control, regulate, and restrict, and not to encourage the liquor traffic the revenue being the result of the system and not the ~otive for its; adoption ...... The higher the fee imposed for license,. it is sometimes said, the better the regulation, as the effect of ~l hi1rh fee is to keep out of the business those who are ·undesirable, and to keep within reasonable limits the num-ber of tho~e who may engage in it."

(1) Pel' Latham C. J. in Mathews v. Chickory Marketing Board, 60 C.L.R. 263, 276.

(2) 771e Co111missio11er, Hindu Religious E11dowme11ts, Madras vs. Sri Laks/11nindra Tltirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirnr Mutt.; [1954] S.C. R. 1005, 1041. 1s.

(3) .1~1s. Guruswamy & Co. Etc. vs. State of .l\fysore Ors., [1967] 1 S. C.R. 548. (4) 44 L. ed. 725. (Sl 52 L. eel. 578.

(6) 5~ L. e:I. 531.

In the view we have taken, the argument that the Government . cannot by contract do what it cannot do under statute must fail. No statute forbids the Government from trading in its own rights ·Or privileges and the statute unlder consideration, far from doing so, expressly empowers it by sections 27 and 34 to grnnt lease of it~. right and to issue the requisite licences, permits or passes on paym,~nt of such fees as may be prescribed by the Financial Commissioner.

The argument that in Coovcrjee's case the impugned power having been exercised in respect of centrally administrated area, the power was not fettered by legislative lists loses its relevance in the view we . are taking. It is true that in that case it was permissible to the court to find, as in fact it did, that the fee imposed on the liccncce,; was ''more in the nature of tax than licence fee". As the authority which levied the fee had the power to exact tax, the levy could be upheld as tax, even if it could not be justified as 'fee', in the c··nsli-tutional sen-;~ of that term. But the 'Licence fee' or 'Fixed kc' in the inst~nt case does not have •o conform to the requirement that it must bear reasonable relationship with the services rendered to the iiccHsce>. The amount charged to the licensees is not fee properly so-c<illc:.' nor incle·2d ta'\ but is in the nature of the price of privilege, which th~ purchaser has to pay in any trading or business transac[1].ion.

This answers the main and the more important arguments urged ·on behalf of the appellants. What remains to be considered is the contention in rcgai·d to the scope and extent of the powers of the Financial Commissioner and the legality, otherwise. of the ck1m.nd for the paymrnt of 'Fixed Fees' made on vendors of forl.'ign liquor ·holding lin:nces in Forms L-3, L-4 and L-5.

Before adverting to these contentions it is necessary to refer to two deci.sions on ~hich the appellants laid some stress. In Laxmic Kant Sahu v. Supdt. of Excise, Behrampur (C.A. 1415 of 1966 decid-ed on I iJ-4-1967) it wa.; held by this Court that section 38 of the 81har and Orissa Excise Act. 1915 did not empower the board to levy tax and since the charge fo; the grant of privilege for the retail 'oil'' vend of foreign liquor under the syst~m of auctioning introduced by the amende\:I rule 103 ( 1 ) was tax, the rule was beyond the ~cope ·of section 38 and therefore void. Tt was expressly conceded in that case on behalf of the State of Orissa that the charge for the grani of privilege for the 'off' vend of· foreign liquor under the sy>tcm of auctioning was tax and not fee. The decision, being based on concession, does not involve determination of the point whether the levv was truly in the nature of tax. Besides. the question :1> h' whether the word 'fee' was use'j in section 38 in the technical sense was not canvassed in that case. The finding that the State Govern-ment had no power undier the Act fo levy dutv in the form of pay-ment for the grant of licence for retail vend of foreign liquor was ·based on ~ "combined reading of sections 22. 27. 28 and 29" of the

Bihar Act. Section 22 empowe.red the Go_vernment t? make a_ gra~t of the exclusive privilege of sellmg by retail country hquor or mtox1-cating drugs only.

The second decision on which the appellants laid stress was ren-t.icred by the High Court of Punjab ~nd Harya~a in !age Ram v . .Swte of Harya11a (C.W. No. 1376 of 1967 ~.ec1ded on March 12, 1968). The argument is that this decision is based on th~ earlier decision of the High Court in Bhajan La.I v. State of Punjab. ~ C.~. :Ko. S38 of 1966 decided on February 6, 1967), that th.e dec1s10n Ill Bhajan Lat's cas.: was conJi~med in appeal by this Court l C;A. .Nos. 1042 and 1043 of 1968 decided on August 21, 1972), that tnere 1s no ·material. difference between the rules and the procedure adopted in the instant. cases and those which were struck down in Bhajan Lal's cas<: and tliereforc the rules and the ·procedure followed herein must also lie struck down for the same reasons. This argument overhloks the significant difkrencc between the rules struck down in Bhajan Lal's case and in Jagc Ram's _case, and ~h~ amended Ru!cs now in force. Under the old Rule 36 (23-A) still-head <.iuty wluch was ad-mitted! y in the nature of excise-duty was payable by the licensee even on quota not lifted by him. The Rule and Condition No. 8 founded on it were therefore struck down in Bhajan Lal's case as being beyond the scope of entry 51 of List II, the taxable event under the impugned Rule b~ing the sale and not the manufacture of liquor. Rule 36 was ;:mended on March 31, 1967 in order to meet the judgment in Bhaja11 Lal's case but the High Court found in J age Ram's case that even under the amended Rule, still-head duty which was in the nature of excise duty was payable on unlifted quota of iiquor. The 'position obtaining under the Rules as amended on March 22, 1968 which aro relevant for our purpcscs is in principle different as the still~hcad duty i-; nc.w only 0.64 paisc as against Rs. 17 .60 per litre which wa.s in force under the old Rules :md excise-duty as such is no longer pay-able on unlifted quota. The principle governing the decisions in Bhajan Lat's case and J age Ram's case cannot, therefore, apply any 11 longer.

As the· amount pcryable by tlie licensees on the basis of the bids offered by them in auctions and on the basis of 'Fixed and Assessed Fees' is neither fee in the technical sense nor tax but is in the nature of •he price of privilege, there is no question of the FinanCial Commissioner lacking power to organize auctions so as to authorize tl1c recovery of nny amount which is not fee properly so-called. The Fin'.'l'ncial Commissioner, under section 34 of the Act read with rule 59( :J-). has the power t? direct that licences may be granted on pay-ment cf such fees, that 1s, such consideration as he may by rules pres-cribe. Tt is noen to him to frame rule. as he has in fact fr<imed Rule 35. dircc'.ing thot anv. class of licences may be grant~d on pay- . ment of fees hxcd by auct1cn. Once it is appreciated that auct'.ons ~re onlv mode or mc'dium for ascertaining the best price obtainable for the grant ... of privilege to sell liquor. there would be no 'cont1·adic-tion in terms' in· directing. as Rule 35 does, that class of "licenc..:s. may be granted on the fee ·fixed by auction".

The demands for the payment of Fixed Fees made on venqorn of .Foreign Liquor holding licences in Forms L-3, L-4 and L-5 were .challenged on the atlditional ground that they were contrary to the .terms of Rule 12 and therefore illegal. Under Rule 11, applicatiions for renewal of :licences for the following year have to be made before the end of October. By Rule 12 the Excise Inspector has to lay be, fore the Collector by the 7th January each year list of licences re~ quiring renewal, togethc:r with certificate of sales as provided by rule 30, to facilitate th1e determination of assessed fee. No order for renewal can be made after January 20 in respect of licences to be valid for the following financial year, except with the special sanction of the Financial Commissioner. The appellants holding licences for sale i0f Foreign Liquor applied duly for renewal of their licences anij orders granting renewals were passed before January 20. Later the Rules were amended on March 22 and March 30, 1968 under which the .appellants holding lic:ences in Form Nos. L-3, L-4 and L-5 became liable to pay fu:ed fees up to Rs. 20,000 per annum in addition to fees assessed under rule 31. The grievance of those appellants is that since their licences were renewed in January 1968, the amend-ments matle in March 1968 cannot apply to them and therefore the demand made on the basis of amended rules is illegal.

It is true that the amendments under which the appellants have been called upon to pay fixed fees were made after the licences were renewed. But the licences, though renewed in January 1968, were to be effective from April 1, 1968. The amendments having come into force before April l would govern the appellants' licences and they are, therefore, liable to pay the fixed fees un'der the amended the Rules. payment Licences of such are kes granted as the under Financial section Commissioner . 34 of the Act mav subject -direc:t. to The rules made under section 59 ( d) authorise the impo~ition elf additional fees and such authorization would operate on all licen~~s to be effective thereafter.

We are accordingly of the opinion that. the payments demanded frorµ the appellants are lawfully 'due to the State Government. Such payments are "excise revenue" within the meaning of section 60(1)(a) of the Act. Section 3(9) of the Act defines "excise revenue" to mean "revenue derived or derivable from any payment:, d~~y, fee, ta~, confiscation or fine, imposed or ordered under the pro· v1s1ons of this Act, or of any other law for the time being in force relating to liquor or intoxicating drugs, but does not include fine

opposed by court of law". The payments due from the appellants holding licences in Form L-14A are also due to the Government "on account of any contract relating to the excise revenue" as pro-vided in secti'On 60(1)(c) of the Act. It is therefore open to the Government to recover its dues in the mann_er authorized by sec-tion 60.

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed but in view of the circumstance that observations in Krishna Kumar Narula's case may have led the appellants to embark upon this litigation, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.

. ' .;)