M/S. SITARAM AND BROS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 05-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MIS. SITARAM AND BROS. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 5, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Excise Law: 
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950-Amendment Act of 1985-Whether repug-
C nant to the provisions of Mol/asses Control Orders, 1961 or the Industries 
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 Held: No inconsistency and the 
Amending Act is within the legislative competence under Art. 246(3) of the 
Constitution. 
D 
E 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Alt, 246(3/-Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950-Amendments made by 
Amendment Act, 1985-Held: within the Legislative competence of the State 
Legislature. 
Section 17A and class Mollasses added to Section 41(2)(d) of the 
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 as amended in 1985 were challenged before the 
High Court. After exhaustive consideration of all the constroversies, the 
High Court declared the Amendment Act of 1985 was enacted by the State 
Legislature under Entry 33(a) of List III of the 7th Schedule to the 
Constitution; and that the State Legislature was competent to enact the 
said Amendment Act except condition No. 3(1)(11) and 3(2) of the licences 
in form M- I as repugnant to the provisions of clauses (3), (4) and (7) of 
the Mollasses Control Order. The State did not prefer any appeal. 
In this appeal, on behalf of the appellant it was contended that 
exercising the power under Entry 52 of List I, the Industrial Development 
G Act, 1951 was enacted by Parliament item 25 of the Schedule relates to 
sugar industry; that Mollasses, a by product of the mother liquor of sugar, 
it was controlled by the Mollasses Control Order, 1961 made by the 
Central Government and therefore the State Legislature was devoid of 
competency to enact the Amending Act. 
H 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
278 
SITARAM v. STATE 
279 
HELD : The operation of the Mollasses Control Order 1961 and the A 
operation of the Amendment Act of 1985 amending the Rajasthan Excise 
Act, 1950 have neithe.r occupied the same field nor run into collision 
course. It is seen that the Amendment Act was made by the State Leglsla· 
tore exercising the power under Entry 33(a) of the concurrent list read 
with Entry 24 of State List as Mollasses is a by product of sugar Industry B 
covered by the Industries Development Regulation Act. The Amendment 
Act does not enter into the occupied field of the Mollasses Control Order. 
There is no inconsistency in their operation and that therefore both the 
Amendment Act and the Mollasses Control Order would harmoniously 
co-exist and operate in their respective fields. The State Legislature had 
thereby made the Amendment Act regulating the import, export, transport C 
or possession of Mollasses within the State of Rajasthan. Thus, the 
Amendment Act is within the Legislative competence under Art. 246(3) of 
the Constitution. [281-G·H, 282·A·B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 925 of D 
1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.89 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in C.W.P. No. 1805 of 1988. 
I. Makwana, Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar (NP) for the Appellant. 
E 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondents. 
The follwing Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appeals arise from Writ Petition No. 1808 of 1988 and batch F 
dated 18.8.89 of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court following 
its earlier judgment dated May 17, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 1340 of 1986 
and batch. In the High Court, Section 17A and class Mollasses added to 
Section 41(2)\d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 as amended by the 
Rajasthan Excise Amendment Act 8, 1985 were impugned. The Division 
Bench after exhaustive consideration of all the controversies declared that G 
the Amendment Act 5 of 1985 was enacted by the State legislature under 
Entry 33(a) List III (conurrent list) of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution 
of India. Therefore, the State Legislature was competent to enact the said 
Amendment Act except the condition No. 3(1)(11) and 3(2) of the licenses 
in form M-1 as repugnant to the provisions of clauses (3), (4) and (7) of H 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A the Mollasses Control Order. The State did not prefer any appeal as 
regards the declaration of the said aforesaid provisions to be ultra vires of 
the State Legislature. But being dissatisfied with the judgment of the 
Division Bench the appellants had sought leave and this court granted leave 
under s. 136 of the Constitution. 
B 
c 
It was contended by Mr. Makwana, learned counsel f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.