1993 (3) TMI 378 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 139(1)(a) and Section 56 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
2. Validity of the notification dated 14th September 1992 and follow-up orders dated 15th September 1992.
3. Applicability of Article 14 and Article 301 of the Constitution of India.
4. Requirement of hearing before issuing the notification and follow-up orders.
5. Validity of the cancellation of permits operative within the State of Maharashtra.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 139(1)(a) and Section 56 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 139(1)(a) and Section 56 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, arguing that these sections suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court, however, held that Section 139(1)(a) constitutes conditional legislation and not delegated legislation, as it merely leaves the date, time, area, and manner of enforcing prohibition to the State Government. The court emphasized that the Act provides sufficient guidelines for the exercise of power under Section 139(1)(a), derived from the preamble of the Act, Article 47 of the Constitution, and the scheme and object of the Act. Similarly, Section 56 was upheld as it allows the Collector to cancel licenses for causes having a nexus with the enforcement of the policy of prohibition and the object of the Act. The court concluded that both sections are valid and do not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation or arbitrariness.

2. Validity of the Notification Dated 14th September 1992 and Follow-up Orders Dated 15th September 1992:
The petitioners argued that the notification dated 14th September 1992, declaring Gadchiroli as a dry district, was beyond the scope of Section 139(1)(a) as it directed the cancellation of existing licenses. The court rejected this argument, stating that once a particular area is declared a dry area, subsisting licenses cannot be allowed to operate. The court held that the State Government has the power to issue instructions for the cancellation of licenses as a necessary corollary to the exercise of the main power of introducing prohibition. The follow-up orders by the Collector were deemed valid as they were in compliance with the instructions from the State Government and had a necessary nexus with the policy and object of the Act.

3. Applicability of Article 14 and Article 301 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners contended that the impugned order violated Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 301 (freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse) of the Constitution. The court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that there is no fundamental right to trade in intoxicating liquor under Article 19(1)(g) and, by extension, Article 301 is also not applicable. The court referred to several judgments, including Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Razakbhai Issakbhai Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, which upheld the State's right to enforce prohibition in line with Article 47 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the impugned order does not violate Articles 14 or 301.

4. Requirement of Hearing Before Issuing the Notification and Follow-up Orders:
The petitioners argued that the State Government should have granted a hearing to the residents before issuing the notification and follow-up orders. The court held that the impugned order is quasi-legislative in character and not administrative, and therefore, the principles of natural justice do not apply. The court cited several judgments, including Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija v. The Collector Thane and Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd., to support this conclusion.

5. Validity of the Cancellation of Permits Operative Within the State of Maharashtra:
In Writ Petition No. 2249 of 1992, the petitioners argued that the cancellation of permits operative within the State of Maharashtra was without authority of law. The court held that the cancellation of permits was ancillary to the declaration of Gadchiroli as a dry area and was valid. However, the court clarified that the petitioners could apply for health permits excluding dry areas, which the Collector should decide in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 139(1)(a) and 56 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and the notification dated 14th September 1992 along with the follow-up orders dated 15th September 1992. The court ruled that the impugned orders do not violate Articles 14 or 301 of the Constitution and that the principles of natural justice do not apply to quasi-legislative actions. The cancellation of permits operative within the State of Maharashtra was also upheld, with a clarification regarding the application for health permits.