February 13, 2019:
On Tuesday, the Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha, while allowing the appeal observes that the Financial Commissioner is not competent to amend the Rules with regard to grant of number of licences for the entire state.
As per the Majority, Rule 24(i-eeee) of Haryana Liquor License (Amendment) Rules 2017 as amended by the Financial Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 59(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 is ultra vires the powers of the Financial Commissioner under the Act and therefore, struck down.
The issue raised before the Apex court is regarding Haryana Liquor License (Amendment) Rules 2017, being ultra vires the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.
The amended Rule provides for a single license for the entire State to deal in imported foreign liquor, bottled outside India and imported into the country in a bottled form..
SC holds that the power of Financial Commissioner under Section 59(a) of the Act to regulate sale of liquor, and that sale could be regulated through grant of licence, the Financial Commissioner vesting itself with the power to determine the number of licences, to our mind is not only unreasonable but also unsustainable.
"...To hold that the power of Financial Commissioner under Section 59(a) of the Act to regulate sale of liquor, and that sale could be regulated through grant of licence, the Financial Commissioner was vested with the power to determine the number of licences, to our mind is not only unreasonable but also unsustainable. Such an interpretation amounts to reading words into the statute which the legislature itself never intended. The amendment notified by the Excise Commissioner as a delegate of the Financial Commissioner was per se ultra vires the powers of the latter under Section 6 and 13(a) read with Section 58(2)(e) of the Act...."
As per the Majority view, the unreasonableness and incongruity in the reasoning by the High Court would vest wider powers in the Excise Commissioner than the State Government itself.
"While the State Government would have the power to determine the number of licences and to issue licence for a local area only, the Excise Commissioner would have a superior power to determine the number of licences and issue licences for the entire State."
Therefore, the Financial Commissioner is held to be not competent to amend the Rules with regard to grant of number of licences for the entire state, and which power was exclusive to the State Government under Section 6 read with Section 13(a) and 58(2)(e) of the Act.
In conclusion, SC holds that Rule 24(i-eeee) as amended by the Financial Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 59(a) of the Act is ultra vires the powers of the Financial Commissioner under the Act and is therefore struck down.
Whereas, Justice KM Joseph, in his dissenting judgment, opined that the Financial Commissioner has power to decide upon the number of licenses.
Read Judgment @ LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
