2003 (3) TMI 707 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Sections 47-A to 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
2. Jurisdictional bar created by Section 47-D of the Act.
3. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 47-C of the Act and its alignment with Article 14 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Sections 47-A to 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915:
The Full Bench was tasked with determining the constitutional validity of Sections 47-A to 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, as amended by the M.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2000. The amendments introduced stringent penal provisions and empowered the Collector to confiscate intoxicants and related articles if the quantity exceeded fifty bulk litres. The petitioner challenged these provisions under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The Court upheld the validity of these sections, emphasizing that the power conferred on the Collector is quasi-judicial and must be exercised in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice. The Collector is required to provide an opportunity for representation and hearing before passing any order of confiscation. The Court referenced similar provisions in the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, which had been upheld by higher courts, including the Supreme Court, as valid and constitutional. The Court concluded that the provisions did not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and were designed to enable speedy and effective adjudication concerning the confiscation of intoxicants and related articles.

2. Jurisdictional Bar Created by Section 47-D of the Act:
Section 47-D of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Court to make any order regarding the disposal, custody, etc., of seized intoxicants and related articles once the Collector initiates confiscation proceedings. The petitioner argued that this provision unreasonably restricted judicial authority.

The Court found that this jurisdictional bar was constitutionally valid. It was noted that similar provisions in other statutes had been upheld by the Supreme Court, which recognized the necessity of such provisions to prevent the ruthless exploitation of resources and ensure effective enforcement of the law. The Court emphasized that the Collector's powers were quasi-judicial and subject to appeal and revision, thus providing sufficient safeguards against arbitrary actions.

3. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 47-C of the Act and Its Alignment with Article 14 of the Constitution:
The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 47-C of the Act restricts the Court of Session from staying the order of confiscation during the pendency of the revision. This proviso was challenged as being arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court was divided on this issue. One judge held that this restriction was arbitrary and unreasonable, while another disagreed, noting that the Court of Session could pass interim orders for custody and disposal of the confiscated articles, even if it could not stay the order of confiscation.

The Full Bench resolved this by holding that the restriction on the power to stay the order of confiscation was constitutionally valid. However, it clarified that the Court of Session could pass orders of interim nature for the custody and disposal of the confiscated property during the pendency of the revision. This interpretation ensured that the property could be preserved and protected until the final decision, thereby aligning the provision with the principles of natural justice and avoiding any arbitrary or unreasonable outcomes.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 47-A to 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, as amended. It confirmed that these provisions did not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The jurisdictional bar created by Section 47-D was also upheld. The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 47-C, restricting the power to stay the order of confiscation, was held valid, provided that the Court of Session could pass interim orders for the custody and disposal of the confiscated property during the pendency of the revision. The writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner advised to pursue the remedies of appeal and revision as provided in the Act.