COOVERJEE B. BHARUCHA versus THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER, AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 13-01-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
873 
effect to the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition 
Act of 1951 
and not to take possession of the several 
estates of the three petitioners under that Act. 
The costs of the petitions here and in the High 
Court should, in our opinion, be paid by the State of 
Orissa. 
Appeals Nos. 167 and 168 allowed 
Appeal No. 169 dismissed. 
Agent for the appellants: B· P. Maheshwari. 
Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. 
COOVERJEE B. BHARUCHA 
v. 
THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND 
THE CHIEF COMMISSIOKER, AJMER, 
AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN. C.J., 
MuKHERJEA, 
VIVIAN BosE, GHuLAM HAsAN 
and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.] 
Constitution of India, art. 19 (1) 
(g)-Excise Regulation I of 
1915-Whether ultra vires art. 19 (J) (g)-Reasonable restrictions 
under art. 19 (6)-Charge of fee-Whether in the nature of tax. 
Held, (i) that with reference to Excise Regulation I of 1915 
for the purpose of determining reasonable restrictions within the 
meaning of art. 19 ( 6) of the Constitution, 
on 
the right given 
un<lrr cl. 19 ( 1) (g) regard must be had to the nature of 
the 
business and the conditions 
prevailing in a particular trade and 
no hard and fast rules concerning all trades can be laid 
down. 
The State has the power to prohibit trades which are illegal 
or 
in1moral or injurious to the health and welfare of the public. There 
"is no 
inherent right in a citizen to 
sell intoxicating liquors 
by 
retail and therefore the provisions of the Excise 
Regulation 
I of 
1915 
purporting 
to 
regulate trade in liquor 
in all 
its different 
spheres are not invalid; 
(ii) charge of licence fee by public auction is more in the nature 
of a tax than a licence fee though it is described as a licence 
fee. 
One of the purposes of the Regulation is to raise 
revenue. 
Revenue is collected 
by the grant 
of contracts to carry 
on trade 
in liquors and these contracts are sold by auction. 
The grantee 
1953 
Biswambhar 
Singh 
v. 
The State of 
Orissa 
and Others. 
Bose J. 
1954 
January 13 
1954 
Cooverju 
B. Bharucha 
v. 
The Excise Com-
missioner and the 
Chief Commis-
sioner, Ajmer, 
and OJhers. 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
is given a licence on payment of the auction price. 
The Regula-
tion 
specially 
authorises this. 
It is not a fee levied 
without 
authority of law. 
(i) Crowley v. Christensen (34 Law, Ed. 620, 623) 
(ii) Commonwealth of Australia v. Bank of New South Wales 
([1950] A.C. 235) 
(iii) Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board of Kairnna ([1950] S.C.J. 
324) ( <listinguished) referred to. 
· 
ORIGINAL 
f URISDICTION : Petition 
(No. 232 of 19)3) 
under art. 32 of the Constitution of India. 
B. D. Sharma for the petitioner. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India 
(Portts 
A Mehta, with him) for the respondent. 
1954. Jannary 13. The Judgement of the Court was 
delivered by 
MAHAJ:AN C. r.-This petition under article 32 of 
the 
Consritution 
of 
India 
arises 
in 
the 
following 
circu1nstances. 
The Collector of Excise, Ajmer, respondent No. 3, 
on the 16th 
March, 
1953, held an auction sale of 
"Chang Gate conntry liquor shop, Beawar," for the 
year 
1953-54 
pursuant 
to 
the rules 
framed under 
Excise Regulation I of 1915. 
The petitioner and res-
pondent No. 5, Chhoga Lal, offered bids at the auction 
sale. 
Chhoga 
Lal, 
whose bid 
was in the sum of 
Rs. 57,000, 
was declared 
the highest bidder and the 
pet!tIOner 
who was the former licensee was thus un-
successful in obtaining the contract to run this liquor 
shop as hereinbefore. 
Half of the auction price was 
payable immediately on the provisional acceptance of 
the bid. 
Chhoga Lal, however, deposited Rs. 
16,500 
on the 16th March, 1953, and the balance of Rs. 12,000 
on the 18th 
March, 1953, i.e., two days after the due 
date, contrary to the provisions of sub-rule 8(a) of 
rule 6 of the auction rules.. 
In spite of this the sale 
was eventually confirmed in his favour by the Minister 
of EJtcise. 
The petitioner, when apprised of this irregularity, 
sent a telegram to the Collector of Excise 
stating that 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COUR1' REPORTS 
875 
the sale 
should not be confirmed in favour of Chhoga 
Lal as he had failed in paying the price according to 
the mks and expressing 
his willingness to take the 
licence on the price fetched at that auction sale. 
He 
also 
preferred an appeal to the Chief Commissioner 
against the order of the Collector allowing the deposit 
of Rs. 12,000 after the due date and in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.