The Supreme Court on Wednesday requested the Madhya Pradesh High Court to hear together the disputes relating to Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.’s liquor licence renewal and the rejection of its bid in an excise tender, observing that the issues were interconnected and ought to be decided through a composite judgment.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a special leave petition filed by Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s refusal to entertain certain reliefs relating to the State’s excise tender process.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the company was caught in a “complete mix-up” because its grievance had been split between a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court. He argued that the State had wrongly treated Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., a private company engaged in manufacturing country liquor, on par with Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., a separate public limited company, merely because both entities had common promoters. According to the petitioner, while the conviction relied upon by the State related to employees of the public company, the consequences were wrongly visited upon the private company, resulting in cancellation of its licence and rejection of its tender.
The State opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner had participated in the tender process and challenged the tender conditions only after the process had progressed, raising maintainability issues. It also submitted that the challenge to the tender and the challenge to the licence cancellation constituted separate causes of action.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner essentially had two interconnected grievances, one against the order refusing renewal of its liquor licences and another against the tender process, where possession of a valid licence was an eligibility condition. The Bench noted that the petitioner’s challenge to the tender was intrinsically linked to the dispute concerning the licence.
The Court recorded that, under the roster of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, tender matters are assigned to Division Benches, whereas disputes concerning renewal of liquor licences are heard by Single Judges. However, considering the nature of the controversy, the Supreme Court observed that it would be appropriate for the High Court to decide all issues together.
Accordingly, the Bench requested the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take up the reliefs pending before the Single Judge as well and pass a composite judgment after hearing the parties. It further expressed the hope that the High Court would decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two days. The petitioner was also granted liberty to amend its writ petition in light of the subsequent rejection of its technical bid.