STATE TIMES NEWS JAMMU: Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey of Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Monday disposed off 11 petitions and directed the State to review its Excise Policy in view of the decision of the Court in PIL Nos. 7/1999, 70/1999 and 136/1999 which was placed on record of LPA No. 145/99 titled ‘Residents of Kunjwani versus State of Jammu and Kashmir’, and the government’s recognition of the need for restrictive and regulative trade in the liquor till the time it was considered appropriate to bring about total prohibition.
The court observed that this would take care of the grievances of all the petitioners as well as private respondents. “In that case, it would also be open to the State to undertake an exercise to identify the locations for continuing or opening of such retail vends in accordance with any such policy as may be adopted”, the court further observed. Justice Magrey said the official respondents shall undertake and complete the requisite exercise by the end of the current financial year, i.e, 31st March, 2017 and issue fresh licenses to the selectees for the year 2017-18 operative with effect from 1st April, 2017. The Court further observed that, in case, the present vendees have not paid the annual fee and other dues for the current or any other previous year, they shall deposit the same with the Excise Department before closure of the present financial year.
If any petitioner has deposited his fee or other dues before the Registry of the Court pursuant to any Court order, the Registry shall release and pay the same along with interest in favour of the Excise Commissioner, J&K Government. Justice Magrey further observed that in the instant petitions, government order dated 22nd July, 2003 is not in challenge. However, herein also there is no dispute that by notice dated 25th June, 2006 issued by the Excise Commissioner the licenses were essentially operable only for one year, i.e., for the year 2005-06 and with respect to 95 locations only identified by the Committee of officers constituted by the respondents in compliance of the directions of the Court. Therefore, the Court observed that it would be inconsequential to delve into the legality or otherwise of the impugned notices issued to the petitioners. Any discussion on the submissions made at the Bar would have only academic value. Further more, the temporary licenses in question were issued in favour of the petitioners in terms of the Excise Policy promulgated in terms of government vide Order No. 99-F of 2003 dated 7th April, 2003 read with Order No. 156-F of 2003 dated 22nd July, 2003. More than thirteen years have passed since then. The said policy recognised the need for restrictive and regulative trade in the liquor till the time it was considered appropriate to bring about a total prohibition. Since, the matter has been pending in the Court and there had been an interim order operating in the matter, obviously, the government and the official respondents have not been able to revise the liquor policy during these years.
On the other hand, the petitioners, who were granted temporary licenses for four months which could be regularised to be operable, at best, for one year, have been continuing on such licenses for more than 11 years now on Court orders merely because of pendency of these petitions. These significant observations were passed in 11 writ petitions related to licenses for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), popularly termed as JKEL-2 license.
