India, High Court of Bombay, 29 March 2022, Writ Petition No. 2873 of 2021

The Court stated that it was irrational for foreign liquor vending hotels to put themselves on the same level as the true victims who fell to the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no legal or fundamental right established to have a FL-III license and it is not compulsory. It was held that there was no legal or enforceable right to have a FL-III license on terms dictated by the licensee.

As every vendor of liquor is a licensee of the State Government, it was held to be incomprehensible how a licensee could claim a legally enforceable or constitutional right to dictate the terms and conditions- including fees of the license without demonstrating a clear transgression of Article 14. No other point of contention remains if a violation of Article 14 is not established. There is no inherent legal or fundamental right to foreign liquor license.

Additionally, the Court dismissed the Petitioners’ contention noting that the various steps and concessions taken by the State Government to assist the Petitioners such as the provision for making payment of license fees in 3 installments, allowing concession of 15% to those licensees who paid the entire license the previous year and extension of the time frame for payment of license fees and the like. It was held that for the year prior to that of the impugned notification (2021–2022), there was a rebate or a reduction on account of the pandemic. This was not a ‘normal’ change. The Petitioners cannot demand a reduction and then take the reduction given as a baseline to protest a reversion to the pre-COVID-19 lockdown levels. The comparison must be of the rates between 2021–2022 and 2019–2020 . Those rates are exactly the same. The intervening periods saw a reduction as a one-off concession precisely to mitigate business losses — the very demand the Petitioners make. Therefore, no substance at all regarding the Periodicity Rules, the rebates under the Prohibition Act or of any discrimination under Article 14.

Lastly, it was held that the government had a mammoth responsibility, far beyond the narrow commercial concerns of the Petitioners and their foreign liquor vending business. The needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few. The State was fully entitled to order the shut-down of Petitioners’ establishments in the public interest amidst the pandemic. Such power is also conferred by Rule 9A(2)(c) of the Cash Register Rules.

It was stated that the pandemic could not be cited time and again by businessmen to get extraordinary concessions. All businesses suffered due to the pandemic and no exceptional prejudice was caused to the present Petitioners. The Petitioners’ right to conduct business is not absolute in a time of global distress. The Petitioners cannot have it both ways. They demand a reduction (and would complain if there is none) and then they take the reduction given as a baseline to protest a reversion to the pre-COVID-19 lockdown levels. The comparison has to be of the rates between 2021–2022 and 2019–2020. Those rates “are exactly the same”. The intervening periods saw a reduction “as a one-off concession precisely to mitigate business losses — the very demand the Petitioners make”.