Govt Has Exclusive Privilege Over Sale & Manufacture Of Liquor, It Must Be Afforded Greater Latitude & Fair Play In The Joints: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that given the exclusive privilege of the Government in the sale/manufacture of liquor, the Court, being a constitutional body, should be slow in interfering with executive decisions taken by the State as they are essentially a matter of economic policy.Dismissing a series of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of liquor auction bids by the Government Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,“The Court, in its power of judicial review must be conscious of the complexity of economic matters of which, of course, it is not an expert. As a consequence thereof, the validity of such decisions cannot and must not be tested on any rigid a priori considerations or on the application of any strait-jacket formula”,Background of the Case:These cases were initiated by petitioners who had emerged as the highest bidders (H-1) in an auction conducted by the Excise Department of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners were aggrieved by the subsequent cancellation of the auction on grounds of poor response and less competition. They argued that once they were declared the highest bidders, a right accrued to them, could not be taken away without due process, especially since they were required to deposit a significant amount and were barred from participating in other bids.Observations and Legal Analysis:After meticulously examining the arguments presented at the bar Justice Nargal extensively addressed the scope of judicial review in matters of public contracts and tenders, referencing several key Supreme Court rulings. Scope of Judicial ReviewThe Court reiterated that judicial review in tender/auction processes is extremely limited. It cited Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994), emphasizing that courts should concern themselves only with the decision-making process, not the soundness of the decision itself. This principle was further supported by Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2020), which reinforced the idea that public authorities have freedom of contract, and courts should defer to their decisions in the absence of manifest unreasonableness, arbitrariness, or mala fides“The Government and other public authorities have the freedom of contract and in the absence of manifest unreasonableness, patent arbitrariness or clear mala fides, the Court should show due deference to the decision of the public authority”, the court underscored.Vested Rights of Highest BiddersThe Court examined whether the highest bidders had any vested rights. Referring to State of Punjab v. Mehar Din (2022), it concluded that the highest bidder does not have a vested right to have the auction concluded in their favour. Acceptance of the highest bid is provisional and subject to various conditions, including the nature of the auction, the court underscored and added,“In the facts of the present case, a perusal of the communication issued by the Excise Department to the successful bidders via e-mail reveals that the same was provisional in nature and subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. The communication, thus, only declared the highest bidder and in light of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, such bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his/her favour”.Exclusive Privilege of the GovernmentJustice Nargal acknowledged the argument that the liquor trade's special character grants the Government extensive powers. This perspective was supported by Lakhanlal v. State of Orissa (1976), which established that acceptance of a bid in liquor auctions does not create binding obligations until all conditions are met. The Court also referenced State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986), which highlighted the latitude afforded to the State in economic policy decisions, particularly concerning the liquor trade.Elucidating further on the matter Justice Nargal explained,“The scope of judicial review, therefore, is not that the Court should strike down a policy decision taken by the State merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. It is only the palpably arbitrary, discriminatory or male fide exercise which can be declared as void”.Minimum Guaranteed Revenue and CompetitionAddressing the petitioner's argument that the existence of a Minimum Guaranteed Revenue (MGR) should prevent the cancellation of auctions, the Court found that the Government is not precluded from seeking re-auction to ensure better competition and response. It emphasized that the objective of promoting competition is legitimate and in the public interest, as outlined in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993).“the mere fact that the policy postulated a provision for minimum guaranteed revenue does not disentitle the Government from cancelling the auction on the basis of poor response and less competition”, the court remarked.Arbitrariness and Mala FidesThe court also addressed the petitioners'...

Govt Has Exclusive Privilege Over Sale & Manufacture Of Liquor, It Must Be Afforded Greater Latitude & Fair Play In The Joints: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags