In a significant order deemed as a serious setback to the Harish Rawat Government, the High Court has set aside the excise policy 2015-16 and instructed the Uttarakhand Agriculture Produce Marketing Board (UAPMB), which was empowered to make bulk purchases as per the new Fl-2, to ensure a level playing field for all the retailers of the India-Made Foreign liquor. It asked the agency to maintain the stock in December 2015 as per the demand prevailing in December 2014.
Two liquor companies - M/s United Spirits limited and Pernod Richard India Pvt limited - lodged the petitions with the court, saying that the State-controlled agencies tasked to distribute the liquors had been sitting on the demand list prepared by the wholesalers and consequently, they had been incurring enormous losses and the supply being much less in proportion to the demand, and that the common people had been facing difficulty to buy the stuff.
Notably, the State Government-conceived Fl-2 has been courting controversy since it was enforced in May 2015 with the liquor lobby crying foul of it for the accumulating loss they were incurring and the Opposition pillorying the State Government for pampering some liquor barons under the garb of State-controlled distribution at the expense of the State’s coffers.
Observers say that though the High Court has stopped short of scrapping Fl-2 it has all but set it aside in a round-about way. leader of the Opposition and senior State BJP leader Ajay Bhatt said that the High Court has instructed the State Government to maintain minimum stock of every brand of liquor while listening to the petition filed by United Spirits limited and Parnoid Ricard India limited. The order had buttressed their apprehension that the State Government had formulated Fl-2 policy to favour one or two particular brands to make sure they monopolize the liquor trade in the State.
Bhatt further said senior Congress leader and noted lawyer P Chidambaram had slammed the State Government’s excise policy for it being meant to favour a particular brand at the exclusion of others. “In the writ petition, Chidambaram had alleged that the share of these companies in the State’s liquor trade had come down to two percent from the previous 61 percent as a fallout of the particular policy. This statement is in tune with our charge that the State Government is acting at the behest of the liquor mafia. The sting that showed the secretary to the Chief Minister seeking money from liquor trader would now fit in the larger picture of the conspiracy hatched by the State Government,” he said, adding that his party would raise the demand for CBI inquiry into the murky policy with renewed vigour in the aftermath of the High Court order.
The order was pronounced by Justice UC Dhyani after listening to both the petitioners presented by senior lawyer P Chidambaram. The State Government was represented by AG UK Uniyal, Advocate General. Uniyal said that they are studying the court order in details. “But one thing is clear that the petitioners have challenged the excise policy 2015-16 and the court has instructed to maintain the stock in January 2015 as per the demand of December 2014 and in January 2016 as per the demand of December 2015 and so on.
The petitioners alleged that the State-controlled agencies had been acting on the whims regarding placing of the orders resulting in discrimination among the suppliers, distortion of consumer choice and favouritism of certain brands of IMFl over those supplied by the petitioners, irrespective of the demand of their brands in the markets.
It was also submitted that the sales of their brands had dropped from 3,56,106 cases (one case = 9 litres or 12 bottles) during the period of August-October 2014 to 10776 cases during the period of August to October 2015, a staggering fall from 61 percent to two percent. The petitioner alleged that they made presentation before the State Chief Secretary, highlighting that the existing rules did not provide for sufficient checks and balances for the IMFl to follow a consistent procurement/supply policy, providing room for arbitrary action.
The court found that the procurement policy adopted by the State is prejudiced against certain retailers of foreign liquor. On account of non-supply of the IMFl brands in demand, the retailers are not in a position to cater to the consumer demands, the court said, adding that it is resulting in severe hardship to the retailers in the form of loss of revenue and customer dissatisfaction.
Pramod Krishna, Director-General, CIABC, says: “We welcome the order of the High Court of Uttarakhand pronounced on Wednesday. We are confident that this step will be mutually beneficial not just for the State but also the manufacturers, retailers and most importantly, the consumers. We are delighted that during this festive season the consumers will celebrate with their choice of popular brands.”