Issue
Reasoning
Decision
Ram Chandra Rai
v.
State Of M.p. & Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 429 Of 1970 | 12-08-1970
Shah, J.
1. The appellant who is a licensee of a liquor shop applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a writ of mandamus directing the excise department of the State not to recover license fee for those days in respect of which liquor was not supplied to the appellant. The High Court summarily rejected the petition observing that the supply of liquor to the appellant was under a contract to the Government and "if the Government had committed a breach of the contract the remedy is elsewhere". It cannot, without further investigation, be said that the rights and obligations arising under a licence issued under a statutory authority are purely contractual. In our judgment the High Court was in error in summarily rejecting the petition.
2. We set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the High Court do issue Rule to the State and decide the case on the merits.
3. In this Court the appellant has filed copies of certain correspondence relating to the payment of compensation in respect of those days on which liquor was not supplied. It appears from a perusal of that correspondence that the State had not adopted the attitude that they will insist upon recovering, or retaining the licence fee notwithstanding that they had not supplied the liquor to the liquor shopkeepers.
4. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
5. Appeal allowed.
1. The appellant who is a licensee of a liquor shop applied to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a writ of mandamus directing the excise department of the State not to recover license fee for those days in respect of which liquor was not supplied to the appellant. The High Court summarily rejected the petition observing that the supply of liquor to the appellant was under a contract to the Government and "if the Government had committed a breach of the contract the remedy is elsewhere". It cannot, without further investigation, be said that the rights and obligations arising under a licence issued under a statutory authority are purely contractual. In our judgment the High Court was in error in summarily rejecting the petition.
2. We set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the High Court do issue Rule to the State and decide the case on the merits.
3. In this Court the appellant has filed copies of certain correspondence relating to the payment of compensation in respect of those days on which liquor was not supplied. It appears from a perusal of that correspondence that the State had not adopted the attitude that they will insist upon recovering, or retaining the licence fee notwithstanding that they had not supplied the liquor to the liquor shopkeepers.
4. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
5. Appeal allowed.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties -------------------
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.C. SHAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. HEGDE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. GROVER
Eq Citation
AIR 1971 SC 128
LQ/SC/1970/300
HeadNote
A. Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Mandamus — When available — Contractual obligations — Held, rights and obligations arising under a licence issued under a statutory authority cannot be said to be purely contractual without further investigation — Mandamus, therefore, available
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
