Liquor Shop Shifting Dispute: M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S vs K. Devamani & Ors.

The present case revolves around a dispute over the shifting of a liquor shop from Mahe to Karaikal within the Union Territory of Puducherry. The Appellant, M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S, holds a wholesale liquor license (F.L. 1) under the Puducherry Excise Act, 1970. The dispute arose when the Appellant sought permission to shift their licensed shop from Mahe to Karaikal, and objections were raised by the local residents of Karaikal, including Respondent No. 1, K. Devamani, who filed petitions to stop the relocation of the liquor shop.

Key Facts:

• The Appellant was issued an F.L. 1 License by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) of Mahe on 26.10.2016 to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) to other licensees.
• In 2017, the Appellant applied to shift the liquor shop from Mahe to Karaikal, which led to objections from local residents citing public safety concerns, including the location of the shop near highways and the potential rise in the number of liquor shops in the area.
• The case went through multiple hearings and legal processes, including petitions filed in the Madras High Court and objections from local residents about the permissibility of shifting the shop between different regions under the Excise Act and Rules.
• The final judgment by the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing the shifting of the liquor shop from Mahe to Karaikal, setting aside the High Court’s decision that had previously blocked the shift.

Petitioner and Respondent Arguments:

Petitioner (Appellant): The Appellant argued that there was no legal bar to shifting the licensed shop from one region to another within the Union Territory. They contended that all necessary conditions under the Excise Act and Rules had been met, including compliance with the licensing authority’s conditions for the relocation.

Respondent (K. Devamani and others): The Respondent argued that shifting the shop from Mahe to Karaikal was against public interest, citing concerns about the high density of liquor shops in the Karaikal region and the proximity of liquor sales to residential areas. Additionally, they raised concerns about the interpretation of the term ‘place’ in the Excise Rules, arguing that shifting across regions violated the restrictions set by the Excise Act and prior case law.

Judge Arguments:

Justice Indu Malhotra: Justice Malhotra emphasized that the Excise Act and Rules did not impose a restriction on shifting licensed premises from one region to another within the Union Territory of Puducherry, as long as the conditions prescribed under the law were met. She noted that no prohibition existed in the statute against the relocation of the liquor shop from Mahe to Karaikal, provided the licensing authority granted its approval under the conditions of the Excise Act and Rules.

Justice Uday Umesh Lalit: Justice Lalit concurred with Justice Malhotra’s findings, observing that the term ‘place’ used in the Excise Act and Rules should not be interpreted restrictively. The judgment also highlighted that previous case law and statutory provisions supported the shifting of liquor shops, as long as the conditions of the Excise Act and Rules were adhered to.

Important Testimonies:

• Respondent No. 1 (K. Devamani): Respondent No. 1 opposed the shifting, citing public interest concerns and the proximity of the proposed liquor shop to residential areas. They referred to the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Balu (2016) and raised issues related to the density of liquor shops in Karaikal.
• Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Puducherry: The Deputy Commissioner granted permission to shift the shop after confirming that all statutory conditions were met, including site suitability and compliance with the Excise Rules.
• Excise Authorities: The Excise Authorities conducted assessments and determined that the proposed site in Karaikal did not pose any law-and-order issues and complied with the legal requirements for the relocation of the liquor shop.

Legal Provisions and Rules Discussed:

• The Puducherry Excise Act, 1970, governs the production, manufacture, possession, import, export, transport, purchase, and sale of liquor in the Union Territory of Puducherry.
• Rule 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules governs the shifting of licensed liquor shops. It permits the relocation of liquor shops from one place to another within the Union Territory, subject to the conditions set by the licensing authority.
• Section 2(22) of the Excise Act defines the term ‘place’ as including houses, buildings, shops, booths, tents, vessels, rafts, and vehicles, without specifying territorial restrictions.

Supreme Court Judgment:

The Supreme Court ruled that the shifting of the liquor shop from Mahe to Karaikal was permissible under the Excise Act and the Excise Rules. The Court set aside the High Court’s decision, which had previously blocked the shift, and allowed the Appellant to proceed with the relocation of the liquor shop. The Court concluded that the expression ‘place’ in the Excise Rules did not limit the relocation of liquor shops to within a specific local area or region. The decision was made in light of the compliance with all conditions stipulated under the law, and no prohibition existed against the relocation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment allowed the Appellant to shift their liquor shop from Mahe to Karaikal, upholding the legality of such a shift within the Union Territory of Puducherry. The judgment emphasizes that the Excise Rules allow for the shifting of licensed liquor shops, subject to compliance with statutory conditions, and that the interpretation of terms like ‘place’ should not be restricted in a manner that undermines the objectives of the Excise Act.

Petitioner Name: M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S.
Respondent Name: K. Devamani & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Puducherry.
Judgment Date: 18-12-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: MS CEE CEE & CEE CE vs K. Devamani & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-12-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Commercial Arbitration
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category