The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to hear a petition against non-availability of "popular and niche liquor brands" in the city.
The Petitioner, M/S Path2way HR Solutions, had approached the Court stating that even minimalistic brands like "Royal Stag" are not available with L1 licensees.
While refusing to hear the plea, single bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma observed that popularity of a brand is a "subjective" concept and is not something for the courts to adjudicate. The Judge highlighted that the Delhi government's excise policy talks about uninterrupted supply of liquor, "not Black Label".
The bench also expressed displeasure at the Petitioner for approaching the court at the "drop of a hat". It orally told their counsel,
"Your client has become a habitual litigant. At the Drop of a hat, rather, even if the wind ruffles the hair at someone's forehead, he starts running to the Delhi High Court."
Significantly, at least two more petitions have been filed by the above the petitioner, one seeking "police protection" for liquor vends and another challenging fixation of MRP for liquor brands under the New Excise Policy.
In the instant plea, the Petitioner had arrayed Delhi government as a respondent. However, the Court was of the view that even if some grievance lies, the same is between the Petitioner and the wholesaler, and not the government.
Finally, as the bench warned of imposing cost as a "parting gift", the Petitioner's counsel sought liberty to withdraw the petition.
Accordingly, the matter was dismissed as withdrawn.
Case Title: M/S Path2way HR Solutions v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 618