Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Policy with regard to regulating trade in liquor when hit by Article 14 of the Consti- tution. - State Government can frame policy with regard to regulating trade in liquor and lay- ing down various regulatory measures. Delhi Administration fixed "Minimum Sales Figure" policy was challenged based on Article 14 principally on the ground that the policy as re- flected in the impugned notification was irrational and that raising of MSF requirements over the previous years' figures with a view to regulate the" quality of liquor" being sold in Delhi was arbitrary and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz., to provide liquor of good quality to the consumers in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It was also urged that the policy is discriminatory and as a result of the policy, small scale manufacturers with good quality of liquor, were likely to be deprived of their marketing brand within the potential market of Delhi, in case they do not achieve the prescribed MSF outside Delhi and that would result in leaving the field wide open only for big business houses who would retain their mo- nopoly in Delhi market. The challenge, thus, in effect, is to the executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. It is well settled that the courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitration, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to judgment of the execution. The Courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State. In Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1980(3) see 97, noticing the jurisdictional limitations to analyse and fault a policy, this Court copied that: "The Court cannot strike down a G.O., or a policy merely because there is a variation or contradiction. Life is sometimes contradiction and even consistency is not always a vir- tue. What is important is to know whether mala fides vitiates or irrational and extraneous factor fouls." It would also be prudent to recall the following observations of Lord Justice Lawton in Laker Airways, 1977(2) WLR 234 at 267, while considering the parameters of judicial review in matters involving policy decisions of the executive: "In the United Kingdom aviation policy is determined by ministers within the legal frame- work set out by Parliament. Judges have nothing to do with either policy making or the carrying out of policy. Their function is to decide whether a minister has acted within the powers given' him by statute or the common law. If he is declared by a court, after due process of law, to have acted outside his powers, he must stop doing what he has done until such time as Parliament gives him the powers he wants. In a case such as this I regard myself as a referee, I can blow my judicial whistle whether the ball goes out of play; but when the game restarts I must neither take part in it nor tell the players how to play." In the present case the executive policy regulating the sale of liquor in the territory of Delhi is sought to be challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is 'unfair' and 'unreasonable' besides being 'arbitrary' and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the State has every right to regulate the supply of liquor within its territorial jurisdiction to ensure that what is supplied is 'liquor of good quality' in the interest of health, morals and welfare of the people. One of the modes for determining that the quality of liquor is 'good' is to ascertain whether the particular brand of liquor has been tested and tried extensively elsewhere and has found its acceptability in other States. The manner in which the Government chooses to ascertain the factor of higher acceptability, must in the very nature of things, fall within the discretion of the Government so long as the discretion is not exercised mala fide, unreasonably or arbitrarily. The allegations of mala fide made in the writ petition are totally bereft of any factual matrix and we, therefore, do not detain ourselves at all to consider challenge on that ground. In fairness to learned Counsel for the petitioner we may record that challenge to notification on grounds of mala fide was not pressed during arguments. Laying down requirement of achieving minimum sale figures of a particular brand of liquor in other States, as a mode for determination of the "acceptability" of that brand of liquor, is neither irrelevant, nor irrational or unreasonable. It appears that prescription of MSF requirement is aimed at allowing sale of only such brands of liquor which have been tested, tried and found acceptable at large in other parts of the country. It is not Within the province of this court to lay down that the executive policy must always remain static, even if its revision is "just, fair and reasonable". What is relevant is to find out whether the executive action is malafide, unreasonable or irrational as a criterion. As already observed the Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot S\t in judgment over the policy of Administration except on the limited grounds already noted.