J.Rugvedh Reddy And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 632 Tel

Item No.2
      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                   AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                           W.A.No.62 of 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.     The present appeal is directed against an order dated

12.02.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing I.As.No.1

an 2 of 2021 in W.P.No.3378 of 2021 by the appellants/writ

petitioners praying for a direction to be issued to the respondents to

consider the applications received as per the Notification issued by the

respondent No.3/Prohibition and Excise Department vide Circular

dated 24.01.2021 and for suspending the operation of the Notification

dated 09.02.2021, issued by the respondent No.3/Prohibition and

Excise Department, for grant of prior clearances for establishment of

2B Bars respectively.

2. The main grievance of the appellants/writ petitioners was that

by revising the earlier Circular, the respondent authorities were trying

to accommodate several other applicants to their disadvantage when

they are in similar business.

3. The said applications were opposed by the respondents/State

that they had taken a plea that the appellants/writ petitioners were

only applicants like several others and they could not claim any vested

right to challenge the Notification dated 09.02.2021 and that the

respondent No.3 was well empowered to extend the time for valid

reasons and in the instant case, the reason for revision of the

Notification and extension of time was that the respondent authorities

had received a poor response due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

4. Upholding the stand taken by the respondents/State that there

was sufficient justification in the explanation offered that due to

COVID-19 Pandemic, the response to the earlier Notification was

poor and therefore, further time was granted to the public at large vide

Notification dated 09.02.2021 inviting larger participation in the

tender process, the learned Single Judge dismissed the interim

applications moved by the appellants/writ petitioners.

5. The learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise

appearing for the respondents states that the present appeal as also the

writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners have been

rendered infructuous on account of the subsequent events. He

clarifies that after the revised Circular was issued, 8,464 applications

were received from various bidders and the bids were opened on

19.02.2021. 55 bidders have been finalised in the GHMC area to

whom licences have yet to be issued, due to the ongoing elections for

the post of MLC.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record as also the impugned order.

7. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellants/writ

petitioners on one of the clauses of the Notification dated 24.01.2021

issued by the Department, particularly the Clause that states that "the

Director, Prohibition & Excise or designated authority may postpone

to future date the drawl of lots of 2B Bar by recording, in writing, the

reasons e.g., poor response, cartel formation and other reasons

thereof" is found to be misplaced. The only explanation offered by the

respondents before the learned Single Judge for extending the timeline

to receive applications for grant of licences was that the respondents

had received 7,383 applications as on 08.02.2021, which was quite a

poor response due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. As a result, the

timeline for receiving applications was extended up to 16.02.2021.

The very fact that the respondents managed to receive almost 1,000

additional applications over and above the number of applications

received by them as on 08.02.2021, substantiates the submission made

by learned Government Pleader that there was enough justification for

revising the Notification and extending the time for inviting

applications.

8. The appellants/writ petitioners cannot claim that there has been

any violation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the instant

case, as sought to be urged. This is purely a fiscal matter. The

respondents/State is well entitled to conduct its commercial affairs as

a prudent business person would and garner as much revenue as is

possible. The reasoning offered by the State is that there were greater

chances of inviting more applications by extending the timeline which

is borne out from the number of applications that have been received

subsequently. No fault can be found with the decision of the

respondents/State to revise the schedule and extend the timeline for

receiving more applications for grant of the licences for establishment

of 2B Bars.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with

the impugned order. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed in

limine as meritless along with the pending applications, if any.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

01.03.2021 JSU/pln