The Lt. Governor & Ors. v Shiv Chander More & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Aftab Alam
Judgment Date: 2008-04-09
Court Decision / Holding: Civil Appeal Nos. 5091 of 2004 and 5092 of 2004 allowed; the second renewal was not permissible in view of the binding precedent (Ratan Kaur) and the High Court’s contrary view was set aside; no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Lt. Governor & Ors.

Respondents

Shiv Chander More and Others
(as respondents in Civil Appeal No. 5091)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T.S. Doabia
• Varuna Bhandari Gugnani
• A. Tariq
• D.S. Mahra

Counsels for Respondents

• Vijay Hansaria
• Sneh Kalita
• Parmanand
• Rajiv Talwar
• Sushma Suri

Case Synopsis & Summary

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Lt. Governor was right in refusing to grant or renew a liquor license to Shiv Chander More, in light of this Court’s decision in Ratan Kaur v. Union of India. The representation dated 05.05.2000 was for a fresh grant/renewal of the license. The Lt. Governor held that a second renewal was not permissible, relying on the Ratan Kaur decision. The Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, in M.A.T. No. 28 of 2001 and related matters, produced conflicting views: a learned Single Judge held that the decision in Ratan Kaur was applicable and nonetheless granted relief to the respondent, while the Division Bench held that the Ratan Kaur precedent was not applicable to the facts. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s approach erroneous, noting that once a Single Judge had held the decision applicable, the Division Bench could not take a different view without indicating distinguishing features. It held that the licensing authority’s order was legal and proper and that the High Court should not have interfered. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the renewal was not permissible, with no order as to costs. The judgment underscores the binding effect of controlling precedent and the limits of relief where renewal is barred by law.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Lt. Governor correctly concluded that a second renewal of the license was not permissible in view of the binding precedent in Ratan Kaur v. Union of India. The Single Judge’s finding that the decision was applicable but the Division Bench’s contrary view, absent distinguishing features, was improper. The representation dated 05.05.2000 was for a fresh grant (renewal) of license, and the order of renewal was accordingly legal and proper. Respondents’ remedies, if any, lie outside the scope of the representation; the High Court should not have interfered and the appeal should be allowed to uphold the Lt. Governor’s order.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the Division Bench’s view on the applicability of Ratan Kaur was correct on the facts, and that the representation primarily concerned renewal rather than eviction. They submitted that the High Court’s relief, though controversial, should be sustained to confer renewal or reconsideration. The matter could not be resolved by the Lt. Governor’s action within the representation if a valid remedy existed; relief cannot be granted simply by misapplying precedent. They also highlighted that the eviction-related issues were not properly raised before the Lt. Governor and thus beyond the scope of the renewal dispute.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ratan Kaur v. Union of India	1997 (10) SCC 61	Positive	Cited as the controlling precedent establishing that second renewal of the license is not permissible; the Lt. Governor’s order relied on this decision and the Single Judge’s acceptance of its applicability. The Division Bench’s contrary view was not permitted without distinguishing features.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A -~ (2008] 6 S.C.R. 106 ## THE LT. GOVERNOR & ORS. _\I._ SHIV CHANDER MORE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5091 of 2004) B ## APRIL 9, 2008 ## (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) ## _Administrative Law:_ c _Grant/renewal of licence_ - _Authorities found second renewal not permissible in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Ratan Kaur vs. Union of India_ - _Challenge to_ - _Single Judge of the High Court held that the decision in the said judgment applicable, however, granted the relief_ - _Division_ 0 _[Bench ][of ][the High Court held that the decision ][in ][the said ] judgment not applicable_ - _Correctness of_ - _Held: Incorrect_ - _It was not open for the Division Bench of the High Court to take a different view without indicating any reasons in support thereto_ - _The authorities rightly refused to grant/renewal of licence._ c E The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to whether the Lt. Governor was right in refusing to grant/renew the licence to respondent in terms of the judgment of this Court in _Ratan Kaur vs. Union of_ F _India._ ## Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: The Lt. Governor rightly found that a second renewal was not permissible in view of a judgment of this G Court in _Ratan Kaur vs. Union of India._ Once Single Judge of the High Court held that the decision was applicable, it was not open to the Division bench of the High Court to take a different view without even indicating any distinguishing feature. (Para - 2) [107-F, H, 108-A] H 100 THE LT. GOVERNOR & ORS. _v._ SHIV CHANDER MORE & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) 107 ,. ~ _Ratan Kaur vs. Union of India_ (1997) 10 SCC 61 - A **referred** to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5091 of 2004 _., From the final Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2002 of the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in M.A.T. No. 28 of 2001. ## WITH Civil Appeal No. 5092 of 2004. c T.S. Doabia, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, A. Tariq and D.S. Mahra for the Appellants: Vijay Hansaria, Sneh Kalita, Parmanand, Raj iv Talwar and Sushma Suri for the Respondents. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** ~IVIL APPEAL N0.5091 OF 2004.· 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. E 2. We find the approach of the High Court, (both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench), to be erroneous. It is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent that the representation made on 05.05.2000 by Shiv Chander More was F for a fresh grant of license. The Ltd. Governor found and, in our view, rightly, that a second renewal was not permissible referring to a judgment of this Court in _Ratan Kaur Vs. Union of India_ (1997 (10) SCC 61). The order was challenged before learned Single Judge. Strangely, though learned Single Judge held that the decision was applicable but nevertheless granted relief to[G ] the respondent. The matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench by the Lt. Governor, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar. Peculiarly, the Division Bench found that the decision in Ratan Kaur's case (supra) to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Once learned Single H 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 6 S.C.R. A Judge held that the decision was applicable, it was not open to the Division Bench to take a different view without even indicating any distinguishing feature. However, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the representation did not reflect the correct state of affairs, B and in fact, what was being objected to was the action for eviction. That matter was never projected before the Lt. Governor and, as noted above, the prayer was for renewal. The order of the Lt. Governor, therefore, was legal and proper and the High Court should not have interfered with it. If the respondent has C any remedy, as claimed, other than seeking fresh grant and/or renewal, that did not fall for consideration in the representation before the Lt. Governor and the High Court. We express no opinion in that regard. 3. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without D any order as to costs. ## **CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5092 OF 2004** In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.5091 of 2004, this appeal is allowed. E S.K.S. Appeals allowed.