PROHIBITION & EXCISE SUPDT. A.P. AND ORS. versus TODDY TAPPERS COOP. SOCIETY, MARREDPALLY AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 17-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
PROHIBITION & EXCISE SUPDT. A.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
TODDY TAPPERS COOP. SOCIETY, MARREDPALLY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 17, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licenses General Conditions) Rules, 
1969 with amendment made under Rule 24/A.P. Excise Act, 1968; Section 72: 
C 
Suspension of Licenses of shopkeepers on ground of sale of adulterated 
toddy-Testing of sample from any laboratory allowed with retrospective 
effect by amending Rule 24--Challenge to-High Court quashed order of 
suspension of licenses and struck down retrospective effect of amended Rule-
On appeal, Held: Amendment in the Rule facilitate che171ical examination of 
D samples by an independent laboratory to detect adulteration of toddy to 
safeguard health of consumers-It also regulate sale of adulterated toddy-
Amendment in the rule amends the procedure-Not violative of any 
Fundamental Right-Hence, it could be given retrospective effect-Provisions 
of laying down of a sub-ordinate legislation/amendment in the rule before 
both Houses of the Legislature are directory in nature-Not placing thereof 
E would not vitiate the proceedings-High Court not justified in quashing 
order of suspension of licenses and in striking down retrospective effect of 
the amended Rule-Hence, liable to be interfered with-In the facts and 
circumstances of the case, order of High Court set aside-Amended Rule may 
be placed before the State legislature in compliance with the provisions of 
F the Act-Authority directed to proceed further accordingly-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Articles 20 and 21. 
Appellant raided shops of respondent-members of Toddy Tapers Co-
operative Society and found some of them selling adulterated toddy. FIRs were 
registered, samples of seized toddy got tested from laboratories after 
G permission of the trial Court. Chemical analysis reports showed that samples 
contained 'Alprawlem' a substance injurious to health. Authorities suspended 
licenses of the shopkeepers/respondents. Respondents challenged the 
suspension of the licenses and the High Court uphold the amendment of Rule 
24 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licenses General Conditions) Rules 
H 
576 
PROHIBITION & EXCISE SUPDT. v. TODDY TAPPERS COOP. SOCY. 
577 
but struck down the retrospective effect of the same and quashed the order of A 
suspension of the licences. Hence the present appeals. 
It was contended for the appellants that High Court erred in striking 
down the retrospective effect of the amended Rule 24 of the Rules since the 
rule was amended in public interest to detect and prevent selling of adulterated 
toddy; that since the rule was procedural in nature, it could be given B 
retrospective effect; and that the amended rule did not violate any provisions 
of the Rules. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that since the amended 
Rule was not placed before the State Legislature, it was void and ineffective; C 
that since the amendment was made by way of sub-ordinate legislation, it could 
not have been given retrospective effect; and that as the Rule is a procedural 
enactment, its retrospective effect would violate the provisions of the General 
Clauses Act. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : Per Dr. Lakshmanan, J (for himself and CJJ) : 
D 
I.I. The primary object of amending the A.P. Excise Act was to regulate 
sale of pure toddy without any adulteration of foreign ingredients or 
substances which are highly injurious and endanger the lives of the toddy E 
consuming public to safeguard their health. (585-G-H) 
1.2. As per the amended provision of Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack 
and Toddy Licenses General Conditions) Rules, toddy samples drawn could 
be sent to an independent laboratory for chemical examination. Even otherwise, 
the Court had ordered samples to be sent to the independent laboratories for F 
analysis. The procedure followed by the appellants in sending the samples to 
independent laboratory was correct in accordance with the amended Rule of 
the Rules. The amended rule is not violative of any Fundamental Right and it 
was done with a laudable object of protecting the health of public at large and 
that sending the samples to the independent Government laboratories is only 
a procedural aspect. The amended Rule is procedural in nature and as such G 
there is nothing illegal or wrong in giving retrospective effect. 
(586-C-D; 587-A-B-C; Fl 
1.3. Amended Rule of the Rules facilita

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