9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective application of amended rules. 2. Ultra vires nature of the amended rules. 3. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Retrospective Application of Amended Rules The petitioner contended that G.O. Ms. No. 3495 Home dated 31-12-1977, which amended the relevant rules effective from 1-1-1978, is not retrospective in character and, therefore, should not apply to pending applications. The respondents, represented by the learned Advocate General, conceded this point, stating that renewal applications filed on or before 31-12-1977 would be considered under the rules existing prior to that date. This concession was recorded by the court, making this contention moot. 2. Ultra Vires Nature of the Amended Rules The petitioner argued that the amended rules, specifically Rule 10(B)(1), were ultra vires the Prohibition Act, as they introduced cumbersome procedures and age restrictions that defeated the Act's objective of granting personal permits on health grounds. The respondents countered that the amended rules were in line with the Act's objective of total prohibition, as outlined in Article 47 of the Constitution, and were necessary to prevent misuse of permits. The court held that the rule-making authority has the discretion to regulate the issuance of permits, including the imposition of age limits and the requirement of examination by a medical board. The amendments were deemed not ultra vires as they did not contravene the Act but rather regulated its implementation. The court noted that the Act does not guarantee an absolute right to a permit for medicinal purposes and allows the rule-making authority to impose necessary conditions. 3. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution The petitioners claimed that the amended rules violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) by creating an unreasonable classification based on age and restricting the right to possess and consume liquor. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, which recognized that restrictions on the possession and consumption of liquor for non-medicinal purposes are reasonable under Article 47 of the Constitution. The court found that the classification based on age had a reasonable nexus to the objective of the Prohibition Act, which aims to prevent the misuse of intoxicating substances. The court also noted that the amended rules did not impose an absolute prohibition but regulated the issuance of permits to ensure they were granted only to those whose health would be seriously affected without alcohol. Conclusion The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the amended rules were neither ultra vires the Prohibition Act nor violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The rules were found to be reasonable regulations in line with the Act's objective of total prohibition, except for medicinal purposes, as mandated by Article 47 of the Constitution.
|
