OMA RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 21-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 747 
OMA RAM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.905 of 2002) 
APRIL 21, 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950: 
ss. 98, 54 (A) and 69 (4)(9)- Provisions conferring powers 
on Excise· Commissioner etc. regarding possession, delivery, c 
disposal and release of a vehicle involved in transport of 
contraband items -
Held - Amendments introduced are 
regulatory in nature and cannot be regarded as violative of 
freedom guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 301. 
D 
The instant appeals were filed against the judgment 
of the Rajasthan High Court whereby it dismissed writ 
petitions of appellants challenging vi res of ss.54(ka), 69(4) 
to (9) and 9-B of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 as inserted E 
by way of amendment to the Act. 
It was contended for the appellants that by s.54(A) 
and 69(4) to (9) of the Act the powers otherwise exercisable 
t. 
by Criminal Courts u/ss. 451 to 457 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 with regard to possession, delivery, 
F 
disposal or release of a conveyance, were conferred on 
the Excise Commissioner or any officer authorised in this 
behalf by the State Government; that by s.98 the remedy 
of judicial review was taken away; and that the provisions 
inserted by the amendment were contrary to Article 254 G 
of the Constitution of India. For the respondent-State 
Government it was contended that the amendment to the 
Act was within the legislative con:~etence of the State 
Legislature under Item 8 read with Items 64 and 65 of List 
747 
H 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 6 S.C.R. 
A II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution, and the Act was 
a special Act dealing with the right of State Government 
to regulate production, transfer, storage, possession and 
sale of liquor or intoxicating drugs. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The amendments introduced are regulatory 
in nature and cannot be regarded as violative of freedom 
guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution. There 
are similar provisions in ss.4 and 14A of the Tamil Nadu 
c Excise Act, 1971, ss.43A and 438 in the Karnataka Excise 
Act, 1965, s.75 in the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 and 
ss.46 and 46A the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. In 
view of the decision of this Court in P.N. Krishnalal's case* 
and other cases, the appeals are without merit. [Paras 15, 
D 16 and 1 B] [761-C-G] 
*PN. Krishna Lal & Ors. vs. Govt. of Kera/a & Anr. 
1995(suppl.) 2 sec 187; State of Karnataka V. K.Krishnan 
(2000) 7 SCC 80; Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v State of West 
Bengal & Anr.(1990) 3 SCC 549; Deputy Commissioner, 
E Dakshina Kannada District v. Rudolph Fernandes (2000) 3 
SCC 306 and State of WB. & Ors. V Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 
4 sec 129 - relied on. 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION • Civil Appeal No. 
905 of 2002. 
:=rom the final Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2001 of 
• • 
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur i:i D. B. 
Civil Writ Petition No. 2332 of 2001 
WITH 
Civil ,L\ppeal Nos. 291 of 2004, 3575. 4562 ar.d 906 of 
2002. 
Aishwarya Bhati. Rekha Giri and Gp. Capt. Karan Singh 
Bhati for the Appellant. 
OMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
749 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] 
'°'I 
Aruneshwar Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh and Sandhya 
A 
Goswami for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In all these appeals challenge 
is to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur B 
dismissing the writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of 
the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). 
Challenge in the writ petitions was to the vires of certain provision 
of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (in short the 'Act'). Essentially 
the prayers were as follows: 
c 
"(a) appropriate writ, order or direction, incorporation of 
Sec. 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of 
the Excise Act may be declared ultra-vi res and be struck 
down; 
(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, amendment D 
--~ 
in the Excise Act, 1950 by incorporation of Section 98 
may be declared ultra-vires and be struck down; 
(c) by a further appropriate, writ, order or direction 
impugned order dated 16.5.2000, passed by respondent 
No. 2 may be declared invalid and may be quashed and 
E 
set aside; 
(d) Pending decision, if any further order is made or action 
is taken prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.