STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus GARIB DASS AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 916 · Decided: 20-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
GARIB DASS AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1996 
B 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ!, S.C. SEN AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
c 
Excise La1v : 
UP. Excise Act, 1910: Sections 2U and 37-A and Notifications dated 
30131-3-1978. 
Section 3 7-A-Constitutionality of-Full Bench of High Court 
quashed S.3 7-A as being violative of Art. 14 and void abinitio on ground 
that prohibition under S.3 7-A operated subject to exemption provided under 
S.20(2) in favour of foreign liquor possessed by an individual for his 
D personal consumption and was already existing when S.37-A was 
introduced-Subsequently, S.20(2) omitted and new S. 37-A substituted by 
Amending Acts-New S. 3 7-A removed the discriminatory part of old S. 
37-A-Amending Acts repealed the then existing S. 37-A-Held: Amending 
Acts removed the defect of old S 37-A, as pointed out by the High Court, 
resulting in the disappearance of the foundation of decision of High Court 
E rendering the decision ineffective-Since these amendments and consequent 
new S. 37-A not challenged as unconstitutional, they must operate in their 
present form and must be so implemented 
The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the constitutional validity of Section 37-A of the U.P. 
F Excise Act, 1910 and the Notifications issued thereunder. By the said 
Notifications, a total prohibition on 'Tari' (Toddy) was introduced in 
the State and partial prohibition was introduced in respect of the 
country liquor and foreign liquor. 
G 
The Full Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition on 
the ground that since prohibition under Section 37-A of the Act 
operated subject to exemption provided under Section 20(2) in favour 
of foreign liquor possessed by an individual for his personal 
consumption and since Section 20 was already on the statute book 
when Section 37-A was introduced Section 37-A was violative of 
H Article 14 of the Constitution of India at its very inception and was 
916 
STATE OF U.P. v. GARIB DASS [AHMADI, CJ.] 
917 
void ab initio. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant- A 
State preferred the present appeal. 
During the pendency of the appeal before this Court Section 
20(2) of the Act was omitted and new Section 37-A was substituted 
repealing the existing one by Amending Act with retrospective effect. 
The new Section 37-A removed that part which in the opinion of the B 
High Court was discriminatory. These amendments were not 
challenged as unconsitutional. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The Amending Acts removed the defects of the old C 
Section 37-A of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 as pointed out by the High 
Court, resulting in the disappearance of the foundation on which the 
decision of the High Court was based and thus the decision is rendered 
ineffective. Since these amendments and consequent new Section 37-
A were not challenged as unconstitutional they must operate as if 
they were on the statute book in their present form and must be so D 
implemented. (923-D-E( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 975 of 
1976 Etc. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.78 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 2819 of 1978. 
R.C. Verma, (Ms. Kamini Jaiswal) (NP) and R.B. Misra for the 
Appellants. 
Ms. Rani Chhabra and R.N. Keshwani (NP) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
AHMADI, CJI. Special leave granted in SLP (Civil) Nos. 4669- G 
4771 of 1978. 
A group of writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad questioning the constitutional validity of Section 
37-A of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter called the Act) and the 
Notifications issued thereunder on March 30 and 31, 1978. By the said H 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A Notifications, a total prohibition on 'Tari' (Toddy) was introduced in the 
state and partial prohibition was introduced in respect of the country liquor 
and foreign liquor. The constitutional validity of Section 37-A was 
unsuccessfully challenged in an earlier Writ Petition No. 2972 of 1972 
(Garibdas v. State). Presumably for that reason these Writ Petitions were 
heard and disposed of by a Full Bench of the High Court and were allowed 
8 
by the judgment dated 25.5.1978. The Full Bench held the said provision 
to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and hence a nullity. 
Consequently, it held that the notifications issued under the said provision 
were unsustain

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