ew policy which is in vogue
The licensing period is for two years commencing from 141991 to 3131993
Admittedly the petitioner had not submitted any tender in terms of the new policy for manufac ture of rectified spirit or liquor for grant of D 2 and D 1 licences the licences have already been granted to the third parties and they are not before this court
Any direc tion in this regard would not only interfere with the li cences granted to them but also create a hiatus in opera tional system
This Court cannot direct the State Government to create a new policy of receiving private applications or to direct the Commissioner of Excise to carve out a new policy area and to grant licence to the petitioner
It is not possible to give such a direction for the reasons that the petitioner admittedly did not offer himself as a candidate for consideration when tenders were called for licensing period commencing from 141991
As regards the Government Distilleries at Ratlam is concerned for grant of D 1s licence as requested for we have no sufficient material whether any arrangements have 494 been made to any other parties for supply area in that regard
Under these circumstances it is extremely difficult to accede to the request made by the counsel for the peti tioner
498E 499A  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No 729 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
RF Nariman and PH Parekh for the Petitioners
VN Ganpule
VM Tarkunde SK Agnihotri SK Sinha Rajinder Narain
RS Singh and Rameshwar Nath for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K RAMASWAMY J
In this writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner a partnership firm seeks reliefs of mandamus to direct the State Government and the Commissioner of Excise of MP to allow the petitioner to set up a distillery pursuant to the cabinet policy dated December 30 1984 and to grant D 2 licence to declare the letter dated February 8 1982 as unconstitutional illegal and of no effect in law and to direct the respondent Nos 1 and 2 to grant a licence to manufacture potable Alcohol within the state of Madhya Pradesh and to grant D 1 licence to supply country made liquor etc
This case has behind it chequered history which is necessary to adumbrate
In the State of MP vs NandlaI Jaiswal  Ors  this court considered the legality of the policy the subject matter in the writ petition
It was held therein that nine distilleries in the State of Madhya Pradesh in cluding the one at U j jain were set up on the lands and buildings belonging to the Government
The plants and ma chinery therein initially were of the Government but in course of time the licensees installed or replaced the plants and machinery and became the owners
The petitioner and its predecessors had licence for the distillery at Ujjain for well over 40 years to manufacture rectified spirit
The last of the licences held by the petitioner was for the years April 1 1976 to March 31 198 1
The period of licence was at that time for five years
The practice as per the provisions of the MP Excise Act 1915 for short the Act  and MP Distilleries Breweries and Warehouses Rules for short the rules  issued in exercise of the powers under section 62 was to call for the tenders to manufacture and supply the rectified spirit or denatured spirit spirit country made to the retail vendors 495 within the area attached to the distillery
Rajdahani Dis tillers Corporation for short RDC  became the successful tenderer for the licensing period starting from April 1 1981 to March 31 1986
The petitioner challenged in Misc
Petition No 70181 in the MP High Court under article 226
Initially stay was granted but later it was vacated on August 20 1981 Licence was granted for the period starting from August 251981 to March 31 1986 to RDC and the dis tillery plant and machinery at Ujjain was handed over to RDC on August 28
198 1
Thereafter the petitioner filed another writ petition No 16982 on March 16 1982 for redelivery Of the plant and machinery and the warehouses and other consequential reliefs
That writ petition was dis missed by the High Court against which Civil Appeal No 548383 was filed which is just now disposed of
The peti tioner had applied for grant of licence on February 19 1982 and he reiterated his request in number of reminders includ ing one oh November 3 1986
In the interregnum the Govt
changed the policy by a Cabinet Sub Committee policy deci sion dated December 30 1984 under which they decided to grant licence to the existing licensees of the distilleries and that they should construct the factories at their ex penses on the land allotted by the State Govt
or acquired and allotted by the State Govt
and that they shift the business to new factories and the licence would be for a period of five years
Calling in question of that policy several writ petitions including the one by the petitioner were filed in the MP High Court
The Division Bench partly allowed the writ petition and quashed part of the policy decision
Against it appeals and special leave petitions were filed by the State and the unsuccessful petitioners including the petitioner
It was disposed of by this court reported in Jaiswal s case
During the hearing of the writ petition the Attorney General of India conceded that if the petitioner makes any application for grant of licence it would be considered by the State Govt
and be disposed of quickly
That concession was noted and the argument was founded thereon to hold that the Govt
did not intend to create any monopoly in favour of the existing licensees
This court upheld the policy of the Govt
and allowed the appeals and dismissed the special leave petitions of the petitioner and other
Pursuant thereto the petitioner made an application on December 25 1987 followed by several reminders
Ultimately the State Govt
rejected the petition by letter dated February 8 1988 which is impugned in this writ petition
Under section 13 of the Act the State Govt is empowered to grant licence to manufacture possession and sale of recti fied spirit and the liquor in the distilleries or the brew eries
Under section 14 and Rule XXII the licensee should also have licence to establish distillery to distil 496 rectified spirit or denatured spirit or liquor and a ware house wherein any intoxicant be deposited and kept without payment of duty but subject to payment of the fee to the State Govt
as it may direct
No intoxicant shall be sold by operation of section 17 except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of the licence granted in that behalf
Rule XXII provides the method of disposal of the licence which reads thus XXII
Disposal of licences 1 Licence for the manufacture or sale of intoxicants shall be disposed of by tender
auction
fixed licence fee or in such other manner as the State Govt
may by general or special order direct
Except where otherwise prescribed licence shall be granted by the Collector or by an Officer authorised by him in that be half Rule III to V of the Distillery and Warehouse Rules also made inter alia under sub section 2h of section 62 deal with the subject of grant of  licence and provide in the follow ing terms for different kinds of licences which may be issued viz licences in Forms D 1 D 1s and D 2 III
Subject to the sanction of the State Government the Excise Commissioner may grant a licence in Form D 1 and Form D 1s for the wholesale supply of country spirit to retail vendors
The Collector may issue on payment of a fee of Rs 1000 a licence in Form D 2 for the construction and working of a distillery to any person to whom a wholesale supply licence has been issued
V Subject to sanction of the State Government the Excise Commissioner may issue a licence in Form D 2 for the construction and working of a distillery on payment of a fee of Rs 1000
 The State Govt
rejected application of the petitioner on three grounds
namely 1 that the petitioner requested to issue a licence at the old place at Ujjain Distillery which is no longer available 2 present policy of the State and the Central Govt
was to discourage manufacture of liquor for drinking purpose except for molasses
3 497 However if it is manufactured from other raw materials other than the Mahua his application would be considered
If the petitioner makes an application for establishment or manufacturing denatured spirit at other places and if they produce a No Objection Certificate from Central Government and Environmental Department his application would be considered
The contention of Sri Nariman the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Govt
having made solemn undertaking before this court and the arguments were heard in Nandlal Jaiswal s case on the basis that the application of the petitioner would be considered and disposed of it was with an intention to grant licence to the petitioner but rejection is contrary to the undertaking given to this court
It was also contended that the petitioner have a long clean and commendable history of 40 years in manufac turing country made liquor in the distillery and supply thereof within the area attached to U j jain Distillery
The State Government s non grant of licence thereto is only a rouse to defeat the fundamental rights of the petitioner to establish and trade in the manufacture and distribution of the liquor in terms of the provisions of the Act and the rules and the instructions of the Govt
in that regard
Having given the licence to the other distilleries the petitioner being similarly placed non grant thereto is arbitrary discriminatory and violating article 14 of the Constitution
It was also further contended that the peti tioner if for any reason cannot be granted D 2 licence at U j jain D 2 licence may be granted on Government distillery at Ratlam and supply area attached to it under D 1s so as to do complete justice to the petitioner
It was resisted by Sri Ganpule learned senior counsel for the State contending that pursuant to the undertaking given to this court the application was considered and found not feasible to grant the licence to the petitioner due to grounds stated in the impugned order which are relevant and existant being in conformity with the change of the policy and so this Court cannot interfere and may not issue the writ as prayed for
Though rule nisi was ordered on March 17 1989 despite notice of the Registry dated April 24 1989 neither copies of the writ petition nor the requisite process fee for service of the rule nisi on the respondents were deposited in the court
As a result the rule nisi was not issued to the contesting respondents Nos 3 to 10
Along with the connected appeal which is just disposed Sri Tarkunde the learned senior counsel appearing for RDC which was impleaded as 5th respondent to whom licence was given for Ujjain Distillery contended that unless there is cut in the supply area of the operation of the existing 498 licences and a separate supply area is carved out no D 2 licence could be issued to the petitioner
The licensing period of 1986 to 1991 had expired by efflux of time
New policy is in vogue for the succeeding licensing period of 199 1 to 1993
The licences having been granted to the respective persons who are not represented in this court the relief asked for cannot be granted in their absence
In our view there is force in the contentions of the respondents
The only question for consideration is whether it is a fit case for interference by this court due to the aforestated sequence of events
Undoubtedly the learned Attorney General assured this court that the application if filed by the petitioner would be considered
Obviously in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules
The policy of 1984 was upheld by this court under which nine distilleries were granted D 2 licences to manufacture recti fied spirit and liquor and to supply to the retailers under D 1 licence within the area attached to each of the distill eries
The petitioner admittedly made application to grant licence to manufacture country made liquor obviously with Mahua flowers or molasses at Ujjain
The RDC established new distillery at Ujjain in terms of the new policy at its expense and is manufacturing and supplying the liquor
It vacated the old distillery at Ujjain which we are informed that the building is still existing
RDC had manufactured the spirit and country made liquor in terms of D 2 licence and supplied in terms of D 1 licence
The period of the licence also expired by efflux of time
Again there is change in the new policy which is in vogue
The licensing period is for two years commencing from April 1 199 1 to March 31 1993
Admittedly the petitioner had not submitted any tender in terms of the new policy for manufacture of rectified spirit or liquor for grant of D 2 and D 1 licences the licences have already been granted to the third parties and they are not before this court
Any direction in this regard would not only interfere with the licences granted to them but also create a hiatus in operational system
This court cannot direct the State Govt
to create a new policy of receiving private applications or to direct the Commissioner of Excise to carve out a new supply area and to grant licence to the petitioner
It is not possible to give such a direction for the reasons that the petitioner admittedly did not offer himself as a candidate for consideration when tenders were called for licensing period commencing from April 1 1991
As regards the Govt
Distilleries at Ratlam is concerned for grant of D 1 S licence as requested for we have no sufficient material whether any arrangements have been made to any other parties for supply area in that regard
Under these circumstances it is extremely difficult to accede to the request made by the 499 counsel for the petitioner Though the petitioner had estab lished long career in the field to manufacture supply and distribution of intoxicants in the State of Madhya Pradesh for about 40 years we cannot issue any direction as asked for
Under these circumstances we are constrained to dismiss the writ petition but without costs
YL Petition allowed


Summary:
By a letter dated December 9 1983 certain incentives and allowances were provided by the appellant to its offi cers posted at Gauhati who were not from the North Eastern region
Those allowances were generally known as special duty allowances and the main special duty allowance com prised 25 of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs400 per month
By a Memorandum issued by the appellant on April 11 1985 an ad hoc increase in salary was effected for non local officers and an option was given to them either to choose the ad hoc increase or the special duty allowances for the period during which they were posted at Gauhati
The respondent demanded the extension of the said bene fits to the local officers by their letter dated May 10 1985
When the appellant bank declined to allow the benefits to the local officers the respondent association challenged the Memorandum dated April 11 1985 in a writ petition in the High Court contending that all the officers of the appellant bank posted at Gauhati whether they were from the North Eastern region or outside had to live in the same conditions and suffer from the same hardships and hence if any allowance was given to the officers transferred from outside to the Gauhati Office the very same allowance should also be given to the local officers posted at Gau hati
The appellant bank averred in its counter that the scheme of ad hoc incentives was introduced to tide over the problem of adequately staffing the Gauhati office that the non local officers experienced difficulties in getting accommodation getting familiar with the language and so on and some incentives had to be given to them to mitigate the hardships experienced by them on transfer to Gauhati that the said incentives were temporary and because of the pecul iar circumstances 461 prevailing at the moment in
the North Eastern region which was regarded as a difficult region
The High Court allowed the petition holding that all officers at Gauhati suffered from substantially the same hardship and that the local officers of the appellant bank at Gauhati were discriminated against and directed that they must be given the same benefits as the non local officers transferred to Gauhati
Allowing the appeal by special leave filed by thebank this Court HELD 101
The hardship and inconveniences suffered by an officer of the appellant bank who was transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the North Eastern region would certainly be more acute than those suffered by local officers posted at Gauhati
463G H 102
Some of the officers coming from the North Eastern region may also face considerable hardship when posted at Gauhati but the fact that there might be a few such officers would not render the payment of special allowance exclu sively to officers transferred from distant regions discrim inatory and bad in law
464B C 103
The Reserve Bank of India is a banking institu tion and if in the interest of efficiency and proper work ing it bona fide took the decision to grant some extra benefits to the non local officers transferred to Gauhati with a view to maintain efficient working of its unit at Gauhati they cannot be treated as being guilty of any unlawful discrimination
464E F