It was a bench of Justices S Ratnavel Pandian and RM Sahai which, on November 5, 1993, delivered the Supreme Court judgment that is the focal point of the allegation by Congress MP from Kerala K Sudhakaran that a former apex court judge pocketed a bribe of Rs 36 lakh to lift a High Court ban on foreign liquor licences to 21 bar owners and hoteliers.
Justice Pandian, who retired on March 12, 1994, was the lead judge on the bench, while the 10-page verdict was written by Justice Sahai.
While Sudhakaran had refused to name the judge, Jose Illikal, a hotelier from his constituency, had alleged that the MP was referring to Justice Pandian. As reported by The Indian Express on Thursday, Illikal had also claimed that then CM K Karunakaran, then Kerala Congress chief Vayalar Ravi, and then excise minister Raghuchandra Bal had received payoffs for granting the licence.
The SC judgment in the civil appeal said the ban on the 21 licences ?is capable of creating a reasonable apprehension in the mind of an ordinary citizen that the opposite party (Kerala government) did not decide their (21 owners) case on objective considerations but on invisible yet apparent pressure from extraneous sources.?
?On the one hand the government is taking the realistic view by permitting import of arrack, which is consumed more by the common man, and its quota in 1992-93 was one crore bulk litre, and on the other hand, (it is) cancelling licences of 21 persons in the entire state of Kerala who were granted licence for promoting tourism as it would help in achieving the prohibition policy,? said the judgment.
In addition, the judgment referred to the owners? claim that the government had renewed 381 liquor licences of others ?similarly situated? in the state while cancelling theirs. Though the government countered that the 21 owners formed a ?separate class? to the other existing 381 licences that were only renewed, the court held that the ?state does not appear to follow consistent policy?.
?The agitation must be against consumption of liquor. How the state is curtailing it by permitting import of arrack has not been explained. The rules do not make distinction between renewal and fresh grant, then all licencees are on the same footing and attempt to choose the appellants (21 owners), in our opinion, was contrary to rules without any valid justification,? the judgment said.