STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS versus BIHAR DISTILLERY LTD. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 03-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS 
v. 
BIHAR DISTILLERY LTD. ETC. 
DECEMBER 3, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORAN, JJ.] 
Bihar Excise (Amendment and Validating) Act, 1995-Act of 
1995-Validity of Challenged-P1ice fu:ation of cowtfly liquor by Commis-
sioner of Excise-Enactment of Amending Act to provide stanaory basis and 
legislative impremature to the p1ice fu:ation done by the Commissionei--Held, 
enactment not beyond legislative competence of the state, nor ;iolative of 
fundamental rights nor arbitrary in the facts of the case-Hence the validity 
cannot be impeached. 
A 
B 
c 
Enactment-Constitutionality of-Challenge to---Approach of the cowt 
in examining-Held, is to sta1t with the presumption of Constitutionality and D 
not with a view to pick holes.or to search defects of drafting. 
Judiciary :- Courts-Duty towards Legislature-The Court must recog-
nise the fundamelttal nature and importance of legislative process and accord 
due regard and deference to it, just as the legislative and executive are expected E 
to show due regard and deference for the judicia1y. 
In a batch of writ petitions, High Court, vide an interim order 
directed that the supply of country liquors to retailers shall be made 
directly by the State through its officers. Generally the system was that the 
wholeseller used to supply the same to the retailers and maintenance of F 
the warehouse used to be his responsibility. As per the direction of the 
High Court, the State took up the task of wholesale supply and main-
tenance of warehouse was its responsibility. On 15.12.1989 in a meeting 
between Excise Officers and representatives of distilleries the cost price of 
country liquor was agreed to be enhanced and the break up in the cost G 
price, one of the components of which was on account of maintenance 
charges of ware house was also agreed to by both the parties. 
Excise Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to deduct 
70 paise as maintenance charge. The distilleries filed writ petition before 
High Court challenging the direction of the Excise Commissioner which H 
479 
4SO 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.9S.C.R. 
A was allowed on the ground that the order of deduction by the Excise 
·Commissioner was without ju;i~diction as the power to deduct belonged 
to the Board of Revenue alone. The Governor of Bihar came up with 
ordinances for amending Bihar Excise Act validating the price fixation by 
giving it statutory basis. Pursuant to it Bihar Excise (Amendment and 
B Validating) Act. 1995 was enacted. The writ petition before High Court 
challenging the validity of the above Act as well as the Ordinance, was 
allowed. 
In appeal to this Court the appellant State contended that the 
deduction was justified in view of the fact that the wharehouse belonged to 
C and were maintained by the State and that the break up of the cost price 
was agreed to between the two parties in the meeting. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The Amending Act 9 of 1995 being Bihar Act 9 of 1995 is 
D neither unconstitutional nor it is ineffective to achieve the objective it set 
out to achieve the object set out in the Preamble. The validity of the 
amending Act cannot be impeached. All that it does is to provide statutory 
basis and legislative impremature to the price fixation done by the Com-
missioner and its breakup. It also provides for recovery and deduction of 
E the 0.70 paise component on account of maintenance charges of 
warehouses. It can neither be suggested that the Bihar legislature did not 
have the legislative competence to enact the said Amending Act nor can it 
be suggested that the Act violates any of the fundamental rights enshrined 
in Part III. An act of Legislature cannot be struck down merely saying it 
is arbitrary and the charge of arbitrariness also does not appeal to be 
F justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. [498-A-B; 497-E-H] 
State of A.P. And Others v. Mcdowell & Company and Others, [1996] 
3 sec 709, referred to. 
2. The approach of the Court, while examining the challenge to the 
G constitutionality of an enactment is to start with the presumption of 
constitutionality. The Court should try to sustain its validity to the extent 
possible. It should strike down the enactment only when it is not possible 
to sustain it. The Court should not approach the enactment with_ a view to 
pick holes or to search for defects of drafting, much less inexactitude of 
H language employed. Any such defects

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