LAKSHMI NARAIN AND OTHERS versus DISTRICT EXCISE OFFICER, FATEHPUR & ORS .

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 16-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
161 
LAKSHMI NARAIN AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
DISTRICT EXCISE OFFICER, FATEHPUR & ORS . 
August 16, 1978 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPl'A REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
U.11. Excise Act-Section 4l(e)(v) & (J.P. Excise Rules-Rule 138-Valid 
and riot u11coustitutio11al. 
Co11sit11tio11 of India 1950-Article 32-Petition under-Petitioners partici-
pati1u~ in an auction with full knowledge of conditions if could object to condition. 
Section 41(e) (v) of the U.P. Excise Act cn1powered the Excise Commissioner 
to make rules fixing the days and hours during which licensed premises n1ay be 
kept open or closed. 
The petitioners who were licensees in sale of liquor challenged the validity 
of the rule. 
Dismissing the writ petitions, 
HELD~ 1. As the provisions of Rule 13B of the U.P. Excise Rules arc in 
parl materia with Rule 37 of the Punjab Liquor Licence•Rules 1'56, the decision 
in P. N. Kaushal 
v. 
Union of India tic. [1979] I S.C.R. 121 is applicable. 
[161 GJ 
2. The licences were awarded at public auction and tho conditions regarding 
closure of business on certain days were prirtted in the auction notice. Wilh 
full knowledge of these restrictions which the petitioners considered reasonable 
when they participaited in the bids, they took the licences. They cannot assail 
the :-;arnc in the writ petitions. [162F·GI 
fFor appearance refer to pages 125-126). 
c 
D 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
KRISHNA IYER, J. We have today disposed of a batch 
of writ 
petitions arising under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Annexure A). 
There !he petitioner had challenged Sec. 59(f)(v) and rule 37 as 
unconstitutional. In the present batch of writ petitions the conten-
tion is identical except that the enactment and rule are formally diffe-
G 
rent but in pari materia. 
Sec. 41 (e) (v) of the U.P. Excise Act 
empowers the Excise Commissioner to make rules fixing the days and 
hours during which licensed premises may be kept opened or closed. 
Rule 13 B is one such rule which forbids sale of liquor "on all Tues-
days as well as the first day of every month". 
Aggrieved by rule 13 
B (as amended), because it prohibits liquor trade on the 1st of every 
H 
month the petitioners, who are licensees, have come up to this Court 
challenging its vires. 
Rule 13 B reads thus : 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1979) 1 s.c.R. 
"l 3B. AU excise shops (including foreign liquor coun-
try spirit, home drugs, opium( tari and outstill shops) shall 
not be kept open on 
Independence day 
(August 
15) 
Mahatma Gandhi Birthday (October 2) and on the day of 
Mahatma Gandhi's tragic death (January 30) every 
year 
and also on all Tuesdays as well as on the first day of every 
month. 
Provided that if the first day of the month happen to be 
a public holiday, the day next following of that month shall 
be the day on which the excise shops shall not be kept open. 
Provided further Excise Commissioner, may in consultation 
with the CoUector of the District concerned, waive the condi-
tion of not keeping an exercise shop open on Tuesday or the 
first day of the month or the day next foUowing of that 
month, as the case may be, for such specified period as he 
may think fit, in the case of hotels possessing a licence in 
Form F.L. 6 for the sale of foreign liquor for the brnefit 
of such foreign tourists as may hold a valid permit under the 
All India liquor permit scheme of the Government of India." 
The source of the rule-making power is 
Sec. 
41 ( e )( v) 
which 
hardly needs reproduction. 
It is easy to see that the provisions in the Punjab Law, challenged 
nnsuccessfully before us, and these U.P. provisions are virtually the 
same. 
The contentions put forward by counsel for 
the 
petitioners 
and the submissions by the Solicitor General and Shri 0. P. Rana in 
reply are also identical with what we have heard and considered in the 
Punjab cases. 
Indeed, the U.P. cases, from the point of view of the 
State, are stronger because the licences were awarded at public auctions 
and all the conditions now objected to in these writ petitions regarding 
closure of business on certain days are printed in the the auction notice. 
With full knowledge of these restrictions, 
which 
they 
considered 
reasonable when they participated in the bids (and which we consider 
reasonable for reasons we have given in the Punjab cases), they took 
the licences. 
So their present challenge must meet with its Waterloo 
in the decision 

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