Judgment:
W.P.No.7425/2013 11.02.2014 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard counsel for the parties on grant of interim relief.
The writ-petitioners are seeking stay of operation of the Notification dated 30th March, 2013 whereby Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules 1996 has been amended thereby restricting the sale of foreign liquor to consumers in sealed bottles in respect of licence of F.L.-1- AAAA.
The argument before us is that the amendment to the said Rule has been effected to overturn the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1728/2013 (Som Distilleries and Breweries Limited versus State of M.P.and otheRs.dated 19th March, 2013.
Prima facie, we are not impressed with this argument.
For, the issue before the Division Bench in the said case was in the context of policy formulated by the State Government, which was an executive action, vide dated 22nd November, 2005.
This Court held that without bringing change in law either in the Excise Act or the Rules framed thereunder, the State could not have justified the ban introduced by an executive order.
The ruling pressed into service, in our opinion, does not debar the legislature from framing Act or Rules or amending the existing Act and Rules, as has been done in the present case.
In our opinion, therefore, this argument cannot be the basis to stay the operation of the Notification.
Further, we are of the considered opinion that no irreparable loss will be caused to the writ-petitioners if they abide by amended provision till the final decision of the writ- petition inasmuch as the product draught beer, which is indeed foreign liquor, can be sold in sealed bottles.
The fact that the rack life of draught beer is only 72 hours does not mean that it is incapable of being sold in sealed bottles as such.
Even for this reason the question of granting interim relief does not arise.
Interim relief is, therefore, rejected.
We, however, expedite the hearing of the writ petition, to proceed under caption “Taxation/High Court Expedited Cases”, whichever is earlier.
We once again make it clear that observation made in this order will not come in the way of the writ-petitioners at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.
(A.M.Khanwilkar) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Judge S/