Holding

The expression ‘from one place to another’ in Rule 209 is not restrictive, and the licensing authority may permit shifting of a licensed liquor shop from one region to another within the Union Territory of Puducherry, subject to compliance with the statutory conditions.

Summary

The appellant, a holder of an F.L.-1 wholesale liquor licence, applied to shift its licensed shop from Mahe to Karaikal, another region of the Union Territory of Puducherry, under Rules 163 and 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules. The Deputy Commissioners granted permission subject to two additional conditions, but a resident of Karaikal challenged the shift, arguing that the phrase “from one place to another” in Rule 209 was restrictive and limited shifting to the same local area. The Madras High Court set aside the permission, holding that the term “place” had a restrictive meaning and that the shift could not be made across regions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory language of the Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 and its Rules, noting that “place” is defined merely as a type of structure and that the Act uses “local area” when territorial limitation is intended. The Court concluded that the expression “from one place to another” is not restrictive, allowing the licensing authority to approve inter‑regional shifts provided the conditions of the Act, Rules and licence are satisfied and the maximum number of licences in the area is not exceeded. Consequently, the permission granted to the appellant was held legal and the High Court order was set aside.

Issues considered

The meaning of the expression ‘from one place to another’ in Rule 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules – whether it is restrictive to the same region or local area.
Whether the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) could lawfully grant permission to shift an F.L.-1 licensed shop from Mahe to Karaikal, i.e., from one region to another within Puducherry.
Whether the additional conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner are permissible under the Act and Rules.
Whether such a shift would contravene the ceiling on the number of licences fixed for a particular area under Rule 122.

Legislation cited

Puducherry Excise Act, 1970s. 1(2), s. 14, s. 2(22), s. 70
Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970s. Rule 113, s. Rule 122, s. Rule 163, s. Rule 188, s. Rule 189, s. Rule 191, s. Rule 209, s. Rule 22A

Subjects

Excise lawLiquor licenceShifting of premisesStatutory interpretationPuducherryRule 209Licensing authorityRegional transfer

Judgment

384 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 15 S.C.R. 384
REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S
v.
K. DEVAMANI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9494-9495 of 2019)
B DECEMBER 18, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 – Puducherry Excise Rules,
1970 – rr. 122, 163 and 209 – Appellant sought to transfer his
C licensed liquor shop from one region to another – Respondent No.
3-the Deputy Commissioner of the region where appellant sought
transfer, granted permission – Respondent No. 1 filed writ petition
– High Court set aside the permission granted to the appellant –
High Court held that the word/phrase/term ‘place’ in the Excise
Act and Excise Rules had a restrictive meaning – It was further
D
held that the order which permitted shifting of the wholesale liquor
shop of the appellant had to be confined to a region and not to
an entirely different region – On appeal, held : The Excise Act and
The Excise Rules uses the expression ‘local area’ in contra-
distinction with the word ‘place’, whenever it was intended to
E confine the area in which the liquor shop was located – The
expression ‘from one place to another’ is not restrictive, and does
not curtail the power of the Licensing Authority to grant permission
for shifting the licensed shop from one region to another in the
Union Territory of Puducherry so long as the conditions stipulated
F by the Excise Act and Excise Rules, as also the conditions for grant
of a license are complied with – The shifting should not result in
the increase in number of liquor shops beyond the maximum
number of licenses which may be fixed for a particular area
u/r.122 of the Excise Rules – Further, the permission was granted
G to shift the premises subject to compliance with the conditions laid
down with r.209 of the Excise Rules – In the instant case, the
Deputy Commissioner had imposed additional two conditions – All
the conditions under the Excise Act and Rules were complied by
the appellant – The permission granted for shifting the licensed
shop was legal and valid.
H
384
M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S v. K. DEVAMANI & ORS. 385

Allowing the appeals, the Court A

HELD: 1. The expression ‘from one place to another’ in
Rule 209 of the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970 is not restrictive,
and does not curtail the power of the Licensing Authority to
grant permission for shifting the licensed shop from one region
to another in the Union Territory of Puducherry so long as the B
conditions stipulated by the Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 and
Excise Rules, as also the conditions for grant of a license are
complied with. The shifting should not result in the increase in
number of liquor shops beyond the maximum number of licenses
which may be fixed for a particular area under Rule 122 of the C
Excise Rules. [Para 20] [393-G-H]

2. Given the peculiar demography of the Union Territory
of Puducherry, which comprises of four unconnected regions, it
would be contrary to the object and purpose of the Excise Act,
if a restrictive meaning was to be given to Rule 209 of the Excise D
Rules. The Act must be read as a whole to ascertain the intent
of the legislature. If the intention of the legislature was to
restrict the shifting of a liquor shop to a region, locality,
municipality, or commune, Rule 209 of the Excise Act would have
expressly contained such a prohibition, which is absent. [Para
21] [394-A-B] E

3. The Excise Act and the Excise Rules use the
expression ‘local area’ in contra-distinction with the word ‘place’,
whenever it is intended to confine the area in which the liquor
shop is located. [Para 22] [394-C]
F
4. In the present case, the Licensing Authority i.e. the
Deputy Commissioner (Excise) vide Letter dated 07.06.2018 has
granted permission to shift the F.L.1 Licensed premises of the
Appellant from one region to another, subject to compliance with
the conditions laid down in Rule 209 of the Excise Rules. The G
Deputy Commissioner (Excise) from where appellant sought
transfer permitted shifting of the premises subject to two
additional conditions viz.

(i) There shall be one and the same entrance and exit
only; H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A (ii) The boundary of the building should be properly
protected.
This Court was informed by the Appellant and the State
that all conditions under the Excise Act and Rules were complied
with. [Para 25] [395-A-C]
B 5. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 - the Deputy
Commissioner (Excise), where appellant sought transfer vide
letter dated 15.06.2018 granted permission to the Appellant to
run the F.L.-1 business from the location designated. [Para 26]
[395-D]
C 6. This Court finds no prohibition in the Excise Act or
Rules for shifting the F.L.1 Licensed premises from one place
to another. The permission dated 07.06.2018 for shifting the
licensed shop from one region to another granted by Respondent
No. 3 is legal and valid. [Para 27] [395-E]
D State of Tamil Nadu v. Balu (2017) 2 SCC 281 –
referred to.
K. Murali v. Commissioner (Excise)-cum-Secretary in
W.P. (Civil) No. 39661/2002 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
E (2017) 2 SCC 281 referred to Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9494-
9495 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2019 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos. 15661 & 11767 of 2018.
F
Mahesh Jethmalani, R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advs., Ankur Mittal,
Ms. Nidhi Mittal, U.C. Mittal, Ms. Aishwarya Pandey, S. Thananjayan,
K. Balu, Ms. Promila, V.G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,
S. Manuraj, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Praveen Vignesh, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The Appellant is an F.L.- 1 License holder issued on
H 26.10.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Mahe under the
M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S v. K. DEVAMANI & ORS. 387
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 (“Excise Act”). Under the F.L. - 1 A
License, the Appellant is permitted to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor
(“IMFL”) to other License holders, and not in retail.
2. On 28.02.2017, the Appellant filed an Application before the
Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Mahe for shifting his licensed Liquor
Shop from Mahe to Karaikal under Rules 163 and 209 of the B
Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970 (“Excise Rules”).
3. The Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Mahe forwarded the
Application to Respondent No. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner (Excise),
Karikal vide letter dated 07.03.2017, and requested Respondent No. 3
to conduct an inspection to assess the suitability of the site at Karaikal. C
4. Respondent No. 1, a resident of Karaikal, submitted an
objection dated 02.06.2017 before the Sub – Collector (Excise),
Collectorate, Karaikal to oppose the shifting of the liquor shop to
Karaikal. Respondent No. 1 inter alia submitted that pursuant to the
Judgement dated 15.12.2016 passed in State of Tamil Nadu v. Balu1, D
various liquor shops had been shifted from other regions to the
residential areas in Karaikal. The Court had directed that no shop for
the sale of liquor could be situated within a distance of 500 meters of
the outer edge of the National or State Highways or of a service lane
along the Highway.
E
It was submitted that shifting of the shop was contrary to public
interest of the residents of Karaikal. For about 35 houses in Nedunkadu
circle, Karaikal, there were 35 liquor shops already operational.
It was further submitted that the Madras High Court vide Order
dated 07.03.2003 in K. Murali v. Commissioner (Excise)-cum- F
Secretary in W.P. (Civil) No. 39661/2002 had interpreted the expression
‘from one place to another’ in Rules 163 and 209 of the Excise Rules
to mean that shifting was permissible only within a particular local area,
panchayat or commune, and not from one region to another in the Union
Territory.
G
In view of the restrictive meaning of the word ‘place’, the
Licensing Authority could not grant permission to shift the licensed shop
of the Appellant from one region to another i.e. from Mahe to Karaikal,
which is at a distance of 650 kilometers.
1
(2017) 2 SCC 281 : AIR 2017 SC 262 : 2017 (1) SCJ 586. H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A The shifting of liquor shops from one region to another would
be in contravention of Rules 163 and 209 of the Excise Rules.
5. Respondent No. 1 and one K. M. Baskar filed W.P. (Civil)
Nos. 13081/2017 and 15953/2017 before the Madras High Court for
the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining Respondent No. 2 and
B 4 - Excise Authorities from shifting liquor shops from Mahe to Karaikal.
The Madras High Court vide Order dated 26.02.2018 directed
the Excise Authorities to consider the objections raised by Respondent
No. 1 along with the Application for shifting filed by the Appellant in
accordance with law.
C
6. Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Karaikal
granted a personal hearing to Respondent No. 1 on 01.03.2018.
7. Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Karaikal
vide Order dated 27.03.2018 rejected the objections raised by
D Respondent No. 1, on the ground that the Order dated 07.03.2003
passed by a single judge of the Madras High Court in K. Murali (supra)
was set aside by a division bench vide Order dated 06.09.2005.
8. Respondent No. 1 filed a 2nd W. P. (C) No. 11767/2018 before
the Madras High Court to quash the Order dated 27.03.2018, and
E restrain Respondents No. 2 to 4 - Excise Authorities from permitting
the re-location of liquor shops from Mahe to Karaikal, and granting liquor
licenses in Karaikal.
9. Respondent No. 2 – Deputy Commissioner (Excise),
Puducherry vide Order No. 2239/DCE/S2/FL-1/2017 – 2018/251 dated
F 07.06.2018 granted permission to the Appellant to shift the liquor shop
from Mahe to Karaikal, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions
contained in Rule 209 of the Excise Rules.
10. The Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Mahe vide Order dated
13.06.2018 conveyed the permission granted by Respondent No. 2 –
G Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Puducherry to the Appellant. The
approval was made subject to the following two additional conditions:
(i) there will be one entrance and exit only; and
(ii) the boundary of the proposed site should be protected
H properly.
M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S v. K. DEVAMANI & ORS. 389
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

11. Respondent No. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, A
Karaikal vide Order dated 15.06.2018 granted permission to the
Appellant to commence his business of wholesale vending of IMFL at
Karaikal.
12. Respondent No. 1 filed a 3rd W. P. (Civil) 15661/2018 before
the Madras High Court to quash the Order dated 15.06.2018, and B
restrain Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - Excise Authorities from shifting liquor
shops from Mahe to Karaikal, on the grounds similar to those raised in
the 2nd W.P. (Civil) No. 11767/2018.
The High Court vide Order dated 05.07.2018 granted interim stay
of the Order dated 15.06.2018 passed by Respondent No. 3. C
13. The Excise Authorities supported the case of the Appellant
– License holder in W.P (Civil) Nos. 11767/2018 and 15661/2018.
14. A division bench of the Madras High Court vide Impugned
Judgement and Order dated 14.02.2019 allowed W.P. (Civil) Nos.
11767/2018 and 15661/2018, and quashed the Orders dated 27.03.2018 D
and 15.06.2018 passed by Respondent No. 3. The permission granted
by Respondent No. 2 to 4 to shift the Licensed Shop of the Appellant
from Mahe to Karaikal was set aside.
The division bench held that the disposal of the representation
by Respondent No. 3 – Deputy Commissioner (Excise) Karaikal was E
not in accordance with the Order dated 26.02.2018 passed in W.P.
(Civil) Nos. 13081/2017 and 15953/2017.
The word / phrase / term “place” in the Excise Act and Excise
Rules had a restrictive meaning. The area defined by Section 2 (22) of
the Excise Act was restricted to the “area” in which the liquor shop F
was located. The order which permitted shifting of the wholesale liquor
shop of the Appellant from Mahe to Karaikal had to be confined to the
region of Mahe, and not to Karaikal, which is an entirely different region
in the Union Territory of Puducherry.
15. Aggrieved by the Order dated 14.02.2018, the Appellant – G
Licensed holder has filed the present Special Leave Petition.
We have heard Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Counsel for the
Appellant, Mr. R. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for the Union
Territory and office bearers, and Mr. S. Thananjayan, Counsel for
Respondent No. 1. H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A 16. The issue which arises for our consideration is whether the
permission granted by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - Excise Authorities to
transfer the licensed shop from one region to another in the Union
Territory of Puducherry was permissible under the Excise Act and
Rules.
B 17. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
The Puducherry Excise Act, 1970 provides a uniform law relating
to the production, manufacture, possession, import, export, transport,
purchase and sale of liquor, and intoxicating drugs in the Union Territory
of Puducherry.
C 17.1. Section 1(2) extends the applicability of the Excise Act to
the whole of the Union Territory of Puducherry.
17.2. The word ‘place’ is defined in Section 2 (22) as follows:
“2. – Definitions
D …
(22) “place” includes a house, building, shop, booth, tent,
vessel, raft, and vehicle.”
The word ‘place’ does not indicate the territorial limits within
which the Licensing Authority could grant shifting of a licensed shop.
E
Section 2(22) describes the type of structure or establishment of the
licensed shop, which could either be a house, building, shop, booth, tent,
vessel, raft, or vehicle in which the licensed premises is situated.
17.3. Section 14 of the Excise Act provides that no liquor or
intoxicating drug will be sold without a license issued by the Licensing
F
Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner or Excise Commissioner.
17.4. Section 70 of the Excise Act empowers the Government
to frame rules for carrying out the functions of the Act. The
Government has enacted the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970 in exercise
of the powers under Section 70.
G
Rule 1(2) extends the applicability of the Excise Rules to the
whole of the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
i) Rule 22A (a) of the Excise Rules defines ‘region’ as any
of the 4 regions of the Union Territory viz, Pondicherry,
H Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam.
M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S v. K. DEVAMANI & ORS. 391
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

“CHAPTER-IIA A
Control of inter-State Transport of Liquor
22. A. Definitions — In this Chapter, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context—
(a) “Region” means any of the regions known as B
Pondicherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam in the Union
territory of Pondicherry.”
ii) Rule 113 of the Excise Rules provides for the grant of an
F.L.- 1 license for wholesale vending of liquor.
“CHAPTER – VI C
Sale of Indian or Foreign liquors
113. Licences. — Licences for the sale of Indian liquor or
foreign liquor or both shall be of the following descriptions,
and shall be granted by the Excise Commissioner or Deputy
D
Commissioner, as the case may be, in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act,
namely:—
(1) F.L. 1 Licence:— The holder of this licence shall be
permitted to sell foreign liquor or Indian liquor, or both, in
E
quantities of not less than 9 litres in sealed or capsuled
bottles 2[***] at any one time and in any single transaction
to any other licensee under this chapter and also in sealed
or capsuled bottles in quantities not exceeding 3 [4.5 litres
of all liquors other than beer and 9 litres of beer] at any
one time and in any single transaction to an unlicensed F
person. But he shall not allow the consumption of the liquor
at the licensed premises:
Provided that such licensees may issue another licensed
dealer samples of liquors, in quantities not exceeding 0.180
litres.” G
iii) The procedure for transfer of a licensed liquor shop is
provided under Rule 209 of the Excise Rules.
“CHAPTER—XIII
Excise Licences (General Conditions) H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A 209. Shifting of shops: — The licensee shall not shift the
licensed premises from one place to another without the prior
approval of the Licensing Authority.
Provided that the licensing authority may permit, subject to
the fulfilment of conditions of licence, shifting of licensed
B premises on payment of one-fourth of the license fee for such
shifting”
iv) The term ‘shop’ is defined by Rule 189 of the Excise Rules,
as follows:

C “CHAPTER—XIII
Excise Licences (General Conditions)
…
189. Definition — In this chapter, “shop” means the licensed
D premises where liquor is sold.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
18.1. Rule 113 under Chapter VI of the Rules pertains to the
E sale of Indian or foreign liquors. It provides that the Excise
Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may issue an F.L. – 1 License
for the sale of Indian liquor or foreign liquor, or both, in accordance
with the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Excise Act.
18.2. Chapter XIII of the Excise Rules contains the General
F Conditions of Excise Licenses. Rule 188 states that Chapter XIII will
apply to all Licenses issued under the Excise Act for sale of liquors,
and every license is deemed to include the conditions prescribed herein.
Rule 189 of the Excise Rules describes “shop” as the licensed
premises from where liquor is sold.
G
Rule 191 (2) provides that the applicant of a license shall select
a site, and intimate the licensing authority, who may, after making such
enquiry as he thinks fit, approve the site selected.
Rule 191 (4) provides that the Licensee shall sell the liquor only
H from the approved shop.
M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S v. K. DEVAMANI & ORS. 393
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

19. The Appellant is the holder of an F.L. – 1 License issued by A
the Licensing Authority viz. the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Mahe
for carrying out vending of IMFL.
An F.L.-1 Licensee is permitted to sell liquor only to other
Licensees, and not in retail.
19.1. The Petitioner was carrying out his wholesale business from B
MMC, No. 1/40,41 Main Road, Mahe.
19.2. The Appellant filed an Application dated 28.02.2017 for
shifting his liquor shop from Mahe to Karaikal under Rules 163 and
209 of the Excise Rules before the Deputy Commissioner, (Excise),
Mahe. C
19.3. Rule 209 in Chapter XIII of the Excise Rules provides for
Shifting of Shops of all license holders, whether wholesale or retail.
Rule 209 permits shifting of the liquor shop from one “place” to
another, subject to approval by the Licensing Authority on the terms
D
and conditions contained therein.
The proviso to Rule 209 states that the Licensing Authority may
permit shifting of the licensed premises, subject to the fulfillment of the
conditions of license, and payment of 1/4th of the license fee for such
shifting.
E
There is no restriction or prohibition either in the Excise Act or
Rules on the Licensing Authority from granting permission to shift the
licensed shop from one region to another, subject to the conditions being
complied with.
A fortiori, a licensee can shift a liquor shop from one region to F
another within the Union Territory of Puducherry, subject to the prior
approval of the Competent Authority.
20. We are of the view that the expression ‘from one place to
another’ is not restrictive, and does not curtail the power of the
Licensing Authority to grant permission for shifting the licensed shop
G
from one region to another in the Union Territory of Puducherry so
long as the conditions stipulated by the Excise Act and Excise Rules,
as also the conditions for grant of a license are complied with. The
shifting should not result in the increase in number of liquor shops beyond
the maximum number of licenses which may be fixed for a particular
area under Rule 122 of the Excise Rules. H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.

A 21. Given the peculiar demography of the Union Territory of
Puducherry, which comprises of four unconnected regions, it would be
contrary to the object and purpose of the Excise Act, if a restrictive
meaning was to be given to Rule 209 of the Excise Rules. The Act
must be read as a whole to ascertain the intent of the legislature.
B If the intention of the legislature was to restrict the shifting of a
liquor shop to a region, locality, municipality, or commune, Rule 209 of
the Excise Act would have expressly contained such a prohibition, which
is absent.
22. The Excise Act and the Excise Rules use the expression ‘local
C area’ in contra-distinction with the word ‘place’, whenever it is intended
to confine the area in which the liquor shop is located. For instance,
Section 9 of the Excise Act prohibits the transportation of intoxicants
from one ‘local area’ to another. Similarly, Section 10 of the Excise
Act restricts the movement of intoxicants beyond a certain quantity
which is stipulated for a ‘local area’.
D
23. We find from the Counter Affidavit filed by the State that
similar proposals for shifting 5 shops to Karaikal from other regions
were granted by the Licensing Authority, as per details given
hereinbelow :
Sr.No. Name & License No. Date of Shifting and Order Place of shifting
E From To
1. M/s Vijayalakshmi Wines 13.07.1995 vide Order No. Puducherry Karaikal
L.No. 8/FL-1 13142/93-94/C2/DC(E)
2. M/s Vinoth Liquors 21.01.2009 vide Memorandum Puducherry Karaikal
L. No. 10/ FL-1 No. 10526/DC(E)/C208 – 09
3. M/s Ding Dong Liquors 29.11.2013 vide Order No. Puducherry Karaikal
L. No. 11/ FL-1 6146/DC(E)/C2/13-14
4. M/s Apollo Wines 11.07.2014 vide Order No. Mahe Karaikal
F L. No. 12/FL-1 418/DC(E)/20-14
5. M/s. Fancy Traders 13.01.2016 vide Order No. Puducherry Karaikal
L. No. 13/ FL-1 5176/DC(E)/C2/215-16

24. The Counsel for the State submitted that Respondent Nos.
2 to 4 – Excise Authorities have assessed the pros and cons of the
shifting, and sought the view of the police authorities prior to granting
G
permission to the Appellant. The Report of the Excise Officer was
obtained, which stated that the site of the Appellant at Karaikal is not
located on the National or State Highway. There are no religious or
educational institutions which are located within the 100 meters radius
of the site at Karaikal. There would be no hindrance to the traffic in
H the area. The Superintendent of Police confirmed that there would be
M/S CEE CEE & CEE CEE’S v. K. DEVAMANI & ORS. 395
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

no law and order problem if the licensed shop of the Appellant is shifted. A
25. In the present case, the Licensing Authority i.e. the Deputy
Commissioner (Excise) vide Letter dated 07.06.2018 has granted
permission to shift the F.L.1 Licensed premises of the Appellant from
Mahe to Karaikal, subject to compliance with the conditions laid down
in Rule 209 of the Excise Rules. The Deputy Commissioner (Excise), B
Mahe permitted shifting of the premises subject to two additional
conditions viz.
(i) There shall be one and the same entrance and exit only;
(ii) The boundary of the building should be properly protected.
C
We have been informed by the Counsel for the Appellant and
the State that all conditions under the Excise Act and Rules have
complied with.
26. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 - the Deputy Commissioner
(Excise), Karaikal vide letter dated 15.06.2018 granted permission to D
the Appellant to run the F.L.-1 business from the location designated
in Karaikal.
27. We find no prohibition in the Excise Act or Rules for shifting
the F.L.1 Licensed premises from one place to another. The permission
dated 07.06.2018 for shifting the licensed shop from Mahe to Karaikal
E
granted by Respondent No. 3 is legal and valid.
28. We allow the Civil Appeals and set aside the Order dated
14.02.2019 passed by the division bench of the Madras High Court in
W.P. (Civil) Nos. 11767/2018 and 15661/2018.
29. Ordered accordingly. F
Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed.

Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.

G

H