9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the fixation of quotas for sale to non-licensees. 2. Imposition of a 20% commission on sales exceeding the quota. 3. Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 4. Validity of the statutory order under Section 17 of the Cochin Abkari Act. 5. Compliance with Section 69 of the Cochin Abkari Act regarding publication of rules and notifications. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Fixation of Quotas for Sale to Non-Licensees: The respondent, a wholesale dealer in foreign liquor, contested the excise authorities' right to fix quotas for sales to non-licensees. The High Court concluded that the fixation of quotas was unauthorized and illegal. The court found that the excise authorities had no legal basis to set different quotas for different licensees, which introduced unfair discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Imposition of a 20% Commission on Sales Exceeding the Quota: The respondent was informed by the excise authorities that a 20% commission was to be levied on sales exceeding the fixed quota. The High Court held that this imposition was unauthorized and illegal. The court determined that the collection of the commission lacked legal support and was enforced through the threat of closure, which was deemed illegal. The court directed the excise authorities to repay the collected commission and desist from imposing any such commission until a law authorizing it was enacted. 3. Alleged Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution: The respondent argued that the fixation of quotas and the imposition of the 20% commission constituted an unreasonable restriction on his business, infringing his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The High Court agreed, finding that the restrictions imposed were not reasonable and infringed on the respondent's right to carry on his business. The court also found that the discriminatory quotas violated Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. 4. Validity of the Statutory Order under Section 17 of the Cochin Abkari Act: The appellants contended that the order dated July 14, 1950, was a statutory order under Section 17 of the Cochin Abkari Act, authorizing the imposition of the 20% commission. However, the court found that there was no evidence that this order was communicated to the respondent or published in the official Gazette. The court concluded that the order was merely a departmental instruction and not a statutory order with legal effect. 5. Compliance with Section 69 of the Cochin Abkari Act Regarding Publication of Rules and Notifications: Section 69 of the Cochin Abkari Act mandates that all rules and notifications must be published in the official Gazette to have the force of law. The court found that the endorsement at the foot of Exhibit 1, which purported to impose the 20% commission, was not published as required. Consequently, the court held that the imposition lacked legal authority and could not be enforced. The court emphasized that any variation of the rules, including the imposition of additional fees, must be published in the official Gazette to be valid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the fixation of quotas and the imposition of the 20% commission were unauthorized and illegal. The court affirmed that the restrictions imposed on the respondent's business were unreasonable and infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court also highlighted the necessity of complying with statutory requirements for the publication of rules and notifications to give them legal effect. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
