The Delhi High Court refused to halt the Delhi Government’s decree prohibiting any discount or rebate on the sale of liquor in the national capital.
Justice V Kameswar Rao, who had reserved the order on Monday, issued it. The petition had requested an injunction against the Delhi government’s decree, which was denied.
On March 25, 2022, the case will be heard.
On February 28, the Delhi excise commissioner issued an order prohibiting any discount or rebate on liquor’s maximum retail price (MRP) in the national capital.
The decision stated that the cessation of the discounts was due to reports of big crowds at liquor stores as well as “unhealthy market practises,” and that the sellers were engaging in promotional activities, which are illegal under the Delhi Excise Act.
A slew of petitions were filed in the High Court disputing the judgement, claiming that it went against the government’s own liquor policy, which clearly allows retailers to give discounts, and that the decision was made without giving them a chance to be heard.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sajan Poovayya, and others stated that the discount policy was part of the terms of the licence they got after going through the proper channels, and that it thus fostered good market practises that benefited customers.
All of the grounds listed by the Excise Commissioner in his order are without validity, according to Rohatgi, and the order was passed based on the pleadings of some “unidentified licensees” who claim that because they cannot give discounts, others should be forbidden as well.
He also refuted the claim that bootlegging was taking place due to reduced prices.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rahul Mehra, representing the Delhi Government, supported the prohibition, arguing that the State cannot be a passive observer of bootlegging, exploitative pricing, and attempts by select business sharks to create a monopoly market.
The senior counsel stated that the issue at hand is the sale of liquor, and that the State cannot be blinded by revenue growth.
According to Singhvi, the Excise Commissioner has the authority to limit the amount of discount that can be given on liquor under the Excise Act and Excise Rules.
He argued that because the commerce of liquor is being discussed, liquor vendors cannot claim protection under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution (right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business).
According to Mehra, some people have started storing booze and selling it outside of Delhi because of the enormous discounts offered on it.
Authorities recently seized a lorry going for Gujarat carrying many crates of whiskey, he added.
“People are now storing booze and transporting it outside of Delhi.” This is impossible. Bootlegging is practised on a massive scale. Some stores have seen a six-fold rise in turnover, from 20,000 bottles to over 1,20,000 bottles… What is the source of this consumption? Is this the capital of India? Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh will receive this. “We’ve already intercepted one on its way to Gujarat,” Mehra asserted.
Case: [Bhagwati Transformer Corp. and Ors v Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi].
