AMAR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY versus COLLECTOR OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 03-05-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. ·. 
A 
B 
533 
AMAR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY 
'V. 
COLJ...ECTOR OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF TRWURA 
& ORS. 
May 3, 1972 
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., A N. RAY, I. D. DuA, D. G. PALEKAR AND 
' M. H. BEG1 JJ.] 
. 
Bengal £xcise Act, 1909·, s. 43-Withdrawal of. licence-Collector 
whether has power to, wl.thdraw licence to ·sell liquor-Principle of ems-
dem generis, application of--S. 43 whether violative of AI':. 14 of Consti· 
C · tutio14-Section whether requires separote order wit~dra:wing licence aJ1ltr 
expiry of notice p~iod-Sirow cause notice· whethe'r necessar;v-Nc.'tural 
justie~ requirement~' of-S. 43 whether violates Art 19 9/ Constitution-
Gran~ of licence without public notice under s. 22(1)' of Act whether 
valid. 
The appellant was granted a licence on March D, 1968 by 
the 
D · Excise Collector to •.!Stablish a warehouse for the storage in bond and · 
wholesale · vend 
of 
country spirit 
by import 
and for supply 
to. the excise 
vendors 
in· 
tb~ 
territory 
of 
Tripura 
for 
five 
years commencing April l, 1968 and ending Mllrcn 31, 1973. 
The 
mode of granting the licence . was criticised by tb.! Committee of Esti-
mates. As a re~ult the. Governor of Tripura on July 2, 1970 insetted 
r. 164·A in the Tripura Excise Rules of 1962 whereby fees for licenoo 
E 
G 
II 
fdr the wholesale vend of country spirit were required to be fixed by 
tenoor-cum~auction. On July 6, 1970 the Excise Collector exercising 
his power under s. 43 of the Bengal Excise Act 1909 as extended to the 
Union Territory of Tripura withdrew the licence granted to the appel· 
lant after 15 days' notice and remission of 15 days fee. The appell-ant 
challenged the Excise Collector's order in a petition under Art. 226 of 
the Constitution. 
The 
Judicial Commissioner 
dismissed the 
petition. 
Inter alia the Judicial Commissioner held that the licence granted to the 
a;:>;J:!1lant was i_nvalid because it was granted without public notice as 
required by the proviso to s. 22(1) of the Act. 
In appeal by special : 
leave it was contended by tho..! appellant that (i) the Collector had no 
power to pass the impugned order; (ii) the words "any cause other than" 
in s. 43 must be read ejusdem generi.~ with the cau~es in mentioned ins. 42; 
(iii) s. 43 was. arbitrary and vi,olative of Art. 14 of the Constitution; 
(iv) 
the. terms of s. 43 had not been complied with; (v) the impugned order ·was 
passed without a show cause notice and was ·again t natural justice; · 
(vi) s. 43 being arbitrary imposed unreasonable restrictions on the aP· 
pellant's right to carry on business. 
HELD: (i) Under s. 22, 
Sub-s. (1) the 
Chief Commissioner 
is 
no doubt given .the power of granting the exclusive privilege- of manu· 
fac:turing and selling country liquor or intoxicating drugs- as mentioned 
in clauses (a) to (e) but subs. (2) of this section in express· rerms 
provides . that no 
grantee of any 
privilege 
under sub-s. ( 1) 
shall 
exercise the same unle~s or until he has received a licence in that be-
half from the Collector or the Excise Commissioner. 
In view of this 
provision · it is obvious that it 
i~ . the Collector who grants the licence-
:534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1973) 1 S.C.R. 
within too contemplation of s. 43 and therefore it was this very offic,er 
who rightly granted the licence to the appellant and is empowered to 
withdraw the licence under s. 43. f538 F-Gl 
(ii) Th.e ejusdem generis rule stri\<cs to re-.-ondle the incompatibility 
between specific and general wdrds. This doctrine applies when (1) 
the st-atute contains an enumeration of sp.!cific words; (2) the subjects 
of the enum~ration constitu~ .a 
clas~ or category; (3) that 
cla~s or 
category is· npt exhausted by the enumeration; ( 4) the 
gei~~eral 
term 
Jollows tb.!-'enumeration and (5) tbere is no indication of a different 
le¢slative intent. In the present case it was not easy to construe the 
various clauses of s. 42 as constituting one category .or class.' 
But that 
.apart tbe very language of the two sections 42 and 43 
and the object 
intended to be achieved by them also negative any intention of the 
legislature to attract the rule of ejusdem generis. 
Therefore the ex-
,pression 'any cause other than' in s. 43 (1) could not be considered 
ejusdem generis with the cau~es 
speci;-ed in clauses 
(a) to (g) of 
·s .. 42(1). [540 F-H] 
(iii) Trade or business in country 
liquor has flrom its . inherent 
nature, been treated by the State and the society as a special ca~gory 
requiri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.