JUDGMENT :- T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2010, passed in W.P. No.17193/2009, whereby learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition refusing to issue any direction upon the respondents for grant of a Small Scale Industry Provisional Certificate for starting an Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) Unit in the Union Territory of Puducherry. 2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.26201/2008 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to register the petitioner's unit in the name of Puducherry Elite Distilleries during October, 2008 in a particular place. However, in the course of hearing, it was submitted that the petitioner-appellant would be satisfied if their application submitted on 14th July, 2008, seeking issuance of a Small Scale Industry Certificate is considered by the respondents within a given time. The earlier writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the same on its own merit and in accordance with law. Consequently, the application of the appellant was considered and the same was rejected on 27th July, 2009. The said order was challenged by filing the instant writ petition, being W.P. No.17193/2009. 3. It appears that the application of the appellant was earlier rejected on the ground that the policy of the Government is not in favour of encouraging new or expansion of IMFL units in the Union Territory of Puducherry. Similar stand was taken by the respondents in the subsequent writ petition that as per the policy decision, the Government stopped issuing such certificate after 1996. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by making the following order :- “2. The petitioner states that when this Court had directed the respondents to consider the application, wherein, the petitioner sought for a SSI certificate, the second respondent cannot reject the same by quoting a policy. The petitioner states that mere provisional certificate would not enable the petitioner to open a distillery unit. It is stated that as per the third respondent's letter dated 27.6.2008, the petitioner requires provisional SSI registration for starting an IMFL unit. A reading of the said letter shows that SSI registration certificate from Industries & Commerce Department, Puducherry is a pre-requisite for considering the application for grant of licence for manufacture of MIFL (blending and bottling). It is stated that as per the third respondent's letter dated 27.6.2008, the petitioner requires provisional SSI registration for starting an IMFL unit. A reading of the said letter shows that SSI registration certificate from Industries & Commerce Department, Puducherry is a pre-requisite for considering the application for grant of licence for manufacture of MIFL (blending and bottling). Since the petitioner has not produced the SSI provisional certificate from the Industries and Commerce Department, Puducherry, the question of considering the name of the petitioner for grant of licence does not arise. It may be noted that for grant of licence, SSI provisional certificate is required. But, mere grant of SSI certificate would not entitle the petitioner to start IMFL unit since as per the impugned order, the Government is not in favour of encouraging new and expansion of IMFL unit in the Union Territory of Puducherry at present. 3. Having regard to the policy expressed, I do not find any justification in the prayer sought for in the writ petition for grant of SSI provisional certificate for starting a IMFL unit. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew our attention to the information collected under the Right to Information Act and submitted that the Government of Puducherry has allowed application for the grant of Small Scale Industry Certificate. But from a perusal of the said reply received under the Right to Information Act it does not appear that any certificate has been issued after 1996. 5. It is well settled law that right to carry on business is a fundamental right, but right to carry on business of liquor, including foreign liquor is not a fundamental right. Such right is regulated by the policy framed by the Government from time to time. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been categorically stated that the Government has not issued any provisional registration for the manufacture of IMFL after 16th May, 1996. It is contended that the Department received 67 applications, including the application of the appellant for setting up of IMFL unit. These applications have been rejected by the department as the Government is not in favour of encouraging new or expansion of IMFL unit in the Union Territory of Puducherry. 7. It is contended that the Department received 67 applications, including the application of the appellant for setting up of IMFL unit. These applications have been rejected by the department as the Government is not in favour of encouraging new or expansion of IMFL unit in the Union Territory of Puducherry. 7. The appellant failed to produce any document to show that the respondents have issued any provisional registration for the manufacture of IMFL unit to any person after 16th May, 1996. In that view of the matter, learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that no mandamus can be issued for the grant of registration certificate for the manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor as prayed for by the petitioner/appellant. 8. For the reason aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.