LexKRISHNA KUMAR NARULA ETC. versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KRISHNA KUMAR NARULA ETC. v. THE STATE OF JAMMU 0 AND KASHMIR & ORS. March 1, 1967 [K. SuBBA RAo, C.J., J. C. SHAH, S. M. SUCRI, V. RAMASWAMI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ,) Co11!Jtit11tion of India, 1950, Art. 19(1) (g):__R/ght to ctlfry on busi· ness In liquor-If fundamental right. B The Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act, 1958, s, 20-Lfcence for Cllfl'1· ing on business in liquor-Objections by lnhoblrants for location of bar- c Applicant asked to shift premises as condition for ls.•ue of llcenc~ Validity of order under A.rt. 19(6) of the Constitution. The appellant, who was carrying on business in liquar in his hotel under an annual licence issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner under s. 20 of the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act, 1958, had applied for a fresh licenoe for another year. Meanwhile, the Excile Dcpartmebt received complaints from the inhabitants of tho locality objoctinjl to the D location of the bar in that locality. The complaints were· inquired Into and the appellant was informed by the Commissioner that the licence would not be issued unless he shifted the premises of his hotel : to some other approved locality. · A writ petition filed by the appellant for quash- ing the order was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, HELD : ( i) Dealing in liquor is liusiness, and a citizen has a funda· mental right to do that business under Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitu- tion. But the State can make a law imposing reasonable restrictlona on· the right, in public interests, under Art, 19(6). [S7 D·EJ Dealing in noxious and dangerous goods does not oease to be busi- ness, though the nature of the goods may be a ground for imposing a restriction on the activity. (53 P; 54 CJ T. B. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, Tan/ore, [1953) S.C.R. 290, Coover/ee B. Bharucha v. The Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, A/mer, [1954J S.C.R. 873, State of Assam v. A. N. KldwaJ, Commlsrioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Shillong, [19S7J S.C.R. 295, Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of H/11.r Div/sion and Appeals, Asram, (1958) S.C.R. 1240, explained. Narain Swadesh Weaving Mills v. The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, (1955] I S.C.R. 952, State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chomarbaugwala, [1957] S.C.R. 874 and Ranchhorlalfl v. Revenue j)ivlslonai 9ommissloner, Northern Division, Sambalpur, A.I.R. 1960 Otissa 88, referred to. . Since the instant case was one of issuing a licence, s. 20 of the Excise Act applies. As the Excise and Taxation Commissioner bad made a bona fide onquiry and carlie to the conclusion that the locality was not suitable far carrying on business in liquor, for relevant ...-. it could not be said that his order was arbitra:ry or unreasonable. [SS BJ (ii) Section 22 of the Act deals with cancellation of a licence and does not control s. 20. [58 CJ E F G ff .. K. K. NARULA v. J. & K. STATE (Subba Rao, C.J.) 51 A C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Ch·il Appeals Nos: 65 and B c D E F G H 66 of 1967. Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 16. 1966 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 2 and 4 of 1966. S. T. Desai, S. K. Dholakia, Vineet Kumar and Inder Das Grover, for the appellants (in both the :ippeals). Raja Jaswant Singh, Advocate-General, Jammu and Kashmir, R. N. Sachthey for S. P. Na.vyar, for the respondents (in both the· appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, C.J. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of J ammu & Kashmir dismissing the two petitions filed by the appellants for the issuance of a writ quashing the order passed by the Taxing and Excise Officer, Jammu, refusing to renew their licences for the year 1966-67 in respect of their liquor shops. The facts giving rise to these two appeals may be briefly and separately stated. Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1967 relates to Glory Restaurant situ· ated in Moti Bazaar, Jammu. The appellant in the said appeal, who is the proprietor of the said restaurant, after taking the requisite licence from the Government, had been carrying on for the last 7 y~.ars the business of retail sale of country and foreign liquor in the said restaurant. The licence was an annual licence and it was. being renewed from .year to year. On December 11, 1965, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, J ammu, issued a notice to the appellant ordering the shifting
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.