MOHD. FIDA KARIM AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

MOHD. FIDA KARIM AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

The government was competent to change its policy as the licence grants expressly provided for annual renewal subject to conditions and change of policy; the change from five-year settlement to auction-cum-tender method was a legitimate policy change in public interest to prevent monopoly and augment revenue. Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act do not restrict the government's ability to change policy; there was no promissory estoppel nor violation of Article 14 as no promise or discrimination was established.

Parties
Appellants: Mohd. Fida Karim and Anr.; Respondents: State of Bihar and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 March 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Patna High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Government Policy, Excise Licences, Liquor Vending, Promissory Estoppel, Article 14 Equality Before Law
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Excise Law Government Policy Excise Licences Liquor Vending Promissory Estoppel Article 14 Equality Before Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Fida Karim and Anr.

Appellants

State of Bihar and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Patna High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State Government was competent to change the policy regarding liquor shop settlements from a five-year licence to auction-cum-tender method.
  2. 2 Whether Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act apply to curtailment/change of licence period due to policy change.
  3. 3 Whether the principle of promissory estoppel or Article 14 of the Constitution was violated by the change in policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The government was competent to change its policy as the licence grants expressly provided for annual renewal subject to conditions and change of policy; the change from five-year settlement to auction-cum-tender method was a legitimate policy change in public interest to prevent monopoly and augment revenue. Sections 42 and 43 of the Bihar Excise Act do not restrict the government's ability to change policy; there was no promissory estoppel nor violation of Article 14 as no promise or discrimination was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • State Government to return all National Saving Certificates taken as security to all licensees under the old five-year licence policy within two months, except where the licensee has filed a civil suit for recovery, in which case return will depend on the civil proceedings.