JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---Heard. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is an association established for organizing the people of the Banjara Community in the Marathwada Region of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has challenged in the instant writ petition the relevant Licensing Rules for sale of country liquor and foreign liquor contained in the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 (for short, "the Country Liquor Rules") and the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953) (for short "the Foreign Liquor Rules") respectively, framed under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short, the "Act"), on the ground that the said Licensing Rules are arbitrary, discriminatory and are thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (for short "the Constitution"). The petitioner has also challenged the said Rules on the ground that they are mala fide as they are intended to promote the interest of the liquor lobby in the State. 2. The basic submission urged on behalf of the petitioner in support of the above challenges is that under these Licensing Rules, to achieve the object and policy of augmenting the finances of the State by procuring the highest revenue from the grant of licences for retail sale of country liquor and foreign liquor the State Government should have laid down a procedure of auctioning the said licences under the aforesaid Rules framed by the State Government in respect of the country liquor and the foreign liquor as it has done in the case of Toddy shops, for which as per Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Toddy Shop (Grant of Licence by Auction or Tender) Order, 1968, the licence for the toddy shops are granted by holding the auctions or by calling the tenders. 3. In appreciating the above submissions, it is necessary to notice the procedure prescribed under the Country Liquor Rules and the Foreign Liquor Rules. Rule 23 of the Country Liquor Rules requires that an application for licence for retail sale of country liquor should be made giving the necessary details as required by the said Rules in the form prescribed thereunder. There is also a fee prescribed for the application for licence thereunder co-related to the population of the village, town or city in which the shop is located. There is also a fee prescribed for the application for licence thereunder co-related to the population of the village, town or city in which the shop is located. After scrutinising the said application under the relevant Rules, Rule 24 provides for grant of licence and the various scales of fees are prescribed as licence fees, depending upon the population of the village, town or the city in which the licence is granted. It is material to see that the licence fees which are in the discretion of the State Government, which frames the Rules, are recently revised under the Government Notification dated 16-5-1988 by amending Rule 24(1-B) of the Country Liquor Rules. Another material amendment which needs to be noticed is that although previously the application for licence under Rule 23 had to be made to the State Government through the Collector, as per the amendment made to the said Rule on 17-2-1989 vide Notification 181 No. BPA. 1089/V/PRO 2, (Maharashtra Government Gazette, Part IV-B dated 9-3-1989 p. 321) the said application has to be made to the Collector. The fees upon the application for licences are also increased thereunder. 4. However, what is material is that new Rule 57A is inserted in the Country Liquor Rules under which a committee consisting of the Collector as the Chairman and other ex-officio members is constituted to consider the applications for granting licences under Rule 23. Rule 23-B is also inserted in the said Rules by which the said committee also determines the number and location of the required shops and carries out the selection of candidates by drawing lots from the suitable candidates, subject to general or special orders, if any, issued in this behalf by the Government from time to time. The existing sub-rules (1) and (1-A) of Rule 24 are substituted by the new sub-rule (1) under which the Collector has to grant licence in conformity with the recommendations of the above committee and after satisfying himself that the premises proposed for location of the shop for selling country liquor are in conformity with the provisions of the Rules and instructions issued in this behalf, by the State Government or the Commissioner, from time to time and that there is no other objection to grant the licence applied for. The said grant of licence is of course subject to the payment of the licence fee prescribed in sub-rule (1-B) under which, as stated above, the licence fees are revised recently on 16-3-1988. 5. As regards the Foreign Liquor Rules, the relevant Rules for vendor's licence for sale of foreign liquor are Rules 24 and 25, whereunder the procedure for grant of licence is almost similar to the procedure for grant of licence for sale of country liquor, referred to above. It is, however, material to see that the licence fees for foreign liquor are on the higher side as compared to country liquor and that a deposit of Rs. 10,000/- has to be paid in addition to the licence fees under Rule 25 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. The said rules 24 and 25 of the Foreign Liquor Rules are also similarly amended by the State Government under the Notification 178 No. BPA, 1089/II-PRO-2, dated 17-2-1989, (Maharashtra Government Gazette Part IV-B dated 9-3-1989, p. 313), and similar provisions about the constitution of the committee for consideration of the applications for grant of licence are inserted in the said Rules as Rule 24-A and Rule 24-B. It is in the light of the above provisions that the challenges of the petitioner in the instant writ petition have to be considered. 6. In considering the challenge of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution, it is necessary to bar in mind the limitations of the said challenge. It is well-settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court and in particular its decision in the case of (Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner)1, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1121 that there is no fundamental right in a citizen to carry on trade or business in liquor. The State under its regulatory power has to prohibit absolutely every from of activity in relation to intoxicants-its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. No one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. It is because of the above settled view of the Supreme Court that section 49 is introduced in the Act by the Bombay Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1981, in which it is provided as follows :- "49. It is because of the above settled view of the Supreme Court that section 49 is introduced in the Act by the Bombay Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1981, in which it is provided as follows :- "49. Not withstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government shall have the exclusive right of privilege of importing, exporting, transporting, manufacturing, bottling, selling, buying, possessing or using any intoxicant, hemp or toddy, and whenever under this Act or any Rules or orders made thereunder, any fees are levied and collected for any licence, permit pass, authorisation or other permission given to any person for any such purpose, such fees shall be deemed to include the rent or consideration for the grant of such right or privilege to that person by or on behalf of the State Government." 7. It is true when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of (State of M. P. v. Nandlal)2, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 251 the Court would be slow to interfere with the policy laid down by the State Government for grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor, having regard to the nature of the trade or business, and thus the Court would allow a large measure of latitude to the State Government in determining its policy of regulating manufacture and trade in liquor. What is important from the point of view of challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution is that since the grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor is essentially a matter of economic policy, the Court would hesitate to intervene and strike down what the State Government had done, unless it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide. In taking this view the Supreme Court has referred to its previous decision in the case of (R.K. Garg v. Union of India)3, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2138, in which it has observed that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait jacket formula which is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has to be allowed to the legislature. (See paras 32 and 33 of the judgment in State of M.P. v. Nandlal, cited supra). Since the grant of licence is a matter of economic policy, unless the said policy appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide, the Court would not interfere with the policy of the State in regard to the grant of licence for manufacture and sale of liquor. 8. Turning now to the challenge of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution, it must be borne in mind that what procedure should be followed in grant of licence for sale of foreign liquor, country liquor or toddy shop is essentially a matter of policy to be decided by the State Government and if in its wisdom the State Government has decided to prescribed licence fee for grant of licence for sale of foreign liquor and country liquor, which can always be revised at the discretion of the State Government, from time to time, to achieve the object of augmenting the finances of the State from these resources, it cannot be said that the said Licensing Rules in respect of foreign liquor and country liquor are per se arbitrary and discriminatory only because under the Licensing Rules for toddy shops the licences are granted by holding auctions or by calling tenders. 9. It may be seen that although the public auction are held to get the best auction price it is not always possible to achieve the said purpose by public for which reason the power is reserved by the auctioning authority to reject the highest bid which power is upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Orissa v. Harinarayan)4, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1816 as not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the said case, the Government after rejecting the highest bid on the ground that the price offered was inadequate, subsequently sold the privilege by negotiations with some other parties. In upholding the action of the State Government, the Supreme Court observed that the Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It further observed that although the public auctions are held to get the best auction price, the Government can refuse to accept highest bid in the auction if the price offered at the public auction is inadequate. It is thus clear that the public auction does not invariably in every case serve the purpose of fetching the highest revenue for the State. On the contrary when there is a discretion vesting in the State Government to fix the licence fees, the same can be revised looking to the financial interest of the State by amending the Foreign Liquor Rules or the Country Liquor Rules. It is, therefore, not possible for us to held that the Licensing Rules for sale of foreign liquor and country liquor are per se arbitrary and discriminatory and are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because the licences for sale of liquor are not given thereunder by holding public auctions or by calling tenders. 10. As regard the challenge that by granting additional licences under its present policy, the Government intends to create and perpetrate a liquor lobby of its own and, therefore, the said Licensing Rules for sale of foreign liquor and country liquor should be struck down a mala fide, the said challenge also cannot be upheld, particularly in view of the present amendments to the said Rules by which now the power to grant licence is not with the State Government but is with the Collector who has to grant the licences in conformity with the recommendations of the committee constituted for the said purpose as referred to above. It may also be seen that there is no scope for favouritism before the committee because under Rule 23-B for country liquor and Rule 24-B for foreign liquor the selection of the candidates for grant of licences from amongst the suitable candidates has to be done by drawing lots. It may also be seen that there is no scope for favouritism before the committee because under Rule 23-B for country liquor and Rule 24-B for foreign liquor the selection of the candidates for grant of licences from amongst the suitable candidates has to be done by drawing lots. There is thus no scope for the State Government to interfere with the actual process of grant of licences to any individuals, much less to create and perpetrate any liquor lobby. 11. It may also be seen that the renewal of licence also depends upon the licenses following and complying with all the licensing Rules and the conditions on which the licences are granted and, therefore, no mala fides can be attributed only because the licences are likely to be renewed under the said Rules. When there is an investment made by any person in obtaining the licence, there is no reason why his licence should not be renewed, if he continues to comply with the rules governing the said licence. 12. The challenge about the mala fides thus deserves to be rejected. It may, however, be seen that although the Licensing Rules cannot be challenged on the ground that they are mala fide, still in a particular case if the action in grant of licence to any person under the aforesaid Licensing Rules is challenged as mala fide, the said challenge can be considered and the action of granting the licence to such a person under the Rules can be struck down if the challenge of mala fide is proved in that particular case but for the reason the Licensing Rules themselves cannot be held to be mala fide. 13. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. -----