LexRAZAKBHAI ISSAKBHAI MANSURI AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAZAKBHAI ISSAKBHAI MANSUR! AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. A v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. DECEMBER 4, 1992 [L.M. SHARMA, CJ., S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.J B Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949: Sections 2(39A) and 64, 64A....J'Rotten gur''-Prohibition of possession in excess of prescribed limit without pennit and regulating manufacture-Legislative competence and Constitutional validity of. . C Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 19( l)(g)-Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949-Sections 2(39A), 64, 64A-Whether violative of. · In the present Appeals, Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions, the constitutional validity of the amendments made to the Bombay D Prohibition Act, 1949 by which the possession of rotten gur in excess of the prescribed limit without permit and regulating the manufacture etc. of rotten gur, have been challenged. On behalf of the appellants/petitioners, it was contended that gur and jaggery being popular commodities were being consumed by humans E and cattle and used in the preparation of sweets and Ayurvedic medicines as also in certain industries; and the provisions under challenge were causing serious difficulties in carrying on the business not only in "rotten gur", but also in jaggery and gur, which were not "rotten" and therefore they are violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of Constitution of India. It F was further contended that the amendments were ultra vires the Cons.titu- tion on the ground of lack of legislative competence; that the amendments were also violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution as the Police and other authorities were vested with arbitrary and uncontrolled power. Dismissing the appeals/petitions, this Court HELD: 1.1. Section 64 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 prohibits possession by a person of "rotten gur" in excess of the prescribed quantity without a valid permit. Similar is the provision in section 64A regulating G the manufacture etc. of "rotten gur". It is only the regulatory power which H 369 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A has enabled the State Legislature to make the impugned provisions requir- , - B ing the person concerned to take a permit. There is no grievance that the fee payable for such a permit is in any way excessive. In the circumstances, the Legislature of the Respondent-State was_ fully competent to enact the Amendment Act. [374-F, G] 1.2. The Respondent-State is i~plementing the policy of prohibition of intoxicating liquor, as envisaged in the Directive Principles contained in Article 47 . of the Constitution. It is this policy which has led to the enactment of the provisions under challenge. So far as the Gur (Regulation of use) orders 1968 is concerned, it was a measure adopted to eliminate C covert trade practices which cause artificial scarcity of essential -com- modities or pushes their prices to an unjustifiably ·high level to the prejudice of the general public. It has, therefore, to be noticed that the 1968 Order is m~de applicable to only gur. It do_es not extend to "rotten gur" as defined and dealt with by the amended provisions of the_ principal D Act in that it has the potentiality of being used for manufacture of intoxicating liquor. Therefore, in pith and substance it is a law relating to intoxicating liquor providing for regulatory measure and squarely falls under Entry 8, List II of Seventh Schedule. If the manufacture of liquor could be prohibited, certainly its manufacture with rotten gur could be regulated; Entry 8 confers the necessary competence on the State Legisla- E lure to enact laws for such regulation. Also the 1968 Order excludes alcohol from its purview because it is covered by Entry 8 of List It It is, therefore, incorrect to state that the State legislature was lacking in legislative competence in passing the Amendment Act. [376-D-HJ p Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Others v. State_ of U.P. and Others, [1990) 1 S.C.C. 109, distinguished. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, [1951) S.C.R. 682, referred to. 2.1. The test of reasonableness shoul_d be applied to each individual G, statute which is challenged. No abstract standard, or general pattern of rea~onableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the. relevant prevailing con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.