1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7238 OF 2006 Smt.Rashilaben Natwarsingh Chauhan ...Petitioner Vs. The Administrator Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli at Silvassa & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. C.M. Kothari for Petitioner Mr.Girish Kulkarni with Mr.S.S .Deshmukh for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Date on which the Judgment Reserved: 13 thDecember,2007 Date on which the Judgment Pronounced:10 th January,2008 JUDGMENT(Per Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J.) 1. The Petitioner runs a bar called Sheetal Bar & Restaurant under license issued from 1993 to 1999. In 1999 the Petitioner was directed to produce Non Agricultural Permission (NAP) for the property in which the Petitioner carried on the business of running the bar. The Petitioner could not obtain that permission for some time pending which for lack of NAP the Petitioner's licenses were not renewed between the years 2003 and 2005. Since the license was not 2 renewed, the quota of liquor that the Petitioner was entitled to for running the bar was not released and came to be reserved. The Petitioner has later being granted the NAP and her license has been renewed from time to time and conditionally for the period between 2005 to 2006. The Petitioner applied for the grant of quota of liquor after her license was renewed. The Petitioner was granted a quota for the year 2003- 2004 but has been refused the quota for the year 2004- 2005 since it was after the license period for the year 2004- 2005. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the orders passed by Respondent No.3 dated 30 th May, 2006 (Exhibit- F) to the Petition and 31 st July, 2006 (Exhibit- H) to the Petition. 3. The main challenge in the Petition is for refusal to grant the quota of liquor. There no challenge to the grant or renewal of the license to run the bar, the Petitioner's last license shown in the Petition is up to 31st March, 2007. 4. During the year 2004- 2005 whilst the Petitioner's license was not renewed. The order dated 24 th August, 2004, Exhibit- B to the Petition came to be passed. It is stated that the license was not renewed for the year 2003- 2004 and 2004- 2005 so the quotas of the licensees are kept reserved until further orders. 3 5. It is the Petitioner's contention that since the quota was kept reserved it should have been granted to the Petitioner. For the entire year 2004- 2005 the license was not granted. The reservation made under the order could continue only until the expiry of the period of the license itself. The Petitioner however, claims the quota of liquor for the period during which the Petitioner had no license and the Petitioner's bar was not operational. The Petitioner claims the reservation after the period is over on the premise that it has been kept reserved. The reservation was made during the period 2004- 2005 and could have been allotted to the Petitioner after the Petitioner's license was renewed during that period. Form E-17 annexed to the Petition shows various licenses granted to the Petitioner from time to time. After the license for the period ending 31 st March, 2003, the Petitioner's license has been renewed for the period 12 th August, 2005 to 31 st March, 2006 which has been conditionally granted on 9th September, 2005 subject to the outcome of the NA case. Thereafter, the license has been renewed for one year up to 31 st March, 2007. It is, therefore, clear that the Petitioner had no license for the period 2004- 2005. The Petitioner's bar necessarily remained closed and unoperational. During such period, therefore, there is no question of any quota of liquor being granted or reserved to be granted after that period to 4 the Petitioner. 6. Under the order dated 30 th May, 2006 Exhibit- F to the Petition, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise has renewed the Petitioner's license, and rejected the request for the quota for the prior period between 1st April, 2004 and 11 th August, 2005. 7. That order has been challenged in Appeal by the Petitioner in the Court of the Administration, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. Under the impugned order dated 31 st July, 2006 passed by the Administrator the Petitioner's application for allowance of quota for the prior period has been rejected. That order is a reasoned order. The Petitioner's license was not renewed and subsequently cancelled because of non- compliance of the rules, and hence, the Petitioner was not entitled to receive the quota during the period when her bar did not function at all. Consequently the order has upheld the order of Assistant Commissioner of Excise as the refusal to grant quota was for the period during which there was no valid license. 8. The affidavit in reply of Arun Mishra, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli shows the relevant condition of the license which runs 5 thus: “The licensee will have to lift their monthly quota every month by or before 25 th of the month failing which their quota for respective month will lapse. The monthly quota means 1/12 of the annual quota fixed for retailer.” 9. This shows that the quota is distinct and separate for each month. It has to be lifted each month. The quota for the year would, therefore, be forfeited if the condition precedent, which is the license itself, is not obtained by the licensee. 10. Consequently the Petitioner's claim that because it was reserved it has to be granted must be rejected. The reservation cannot be in perpetuity. The quota was reserved during the said period. The reservation would continue until the end of that period. If the Petitioner would have acquired a valid license during the said period, the reserved quota could have been availed of by the Petitioner. That period having expired and her bar not having functioned, the Petitioner cannot be granted that quota of liquor in the subsequent year. The Petitioner would only be entitled to the quota of that year during which the license is obtained. 6 11. Consequently we find no merit in the Petitioner's claim. 12. The Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)