1963 (3) TMI 82 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ultra vires nature of the State's notification under the Intoxicating Drugs Act.
2. Whether Chloral Hydrate is an intoxicating and narcotic substance under the Intoxicating Drugs Act.
3. Legality of the imposition of a license fee on the manufacture of Chloral Hydrate.
4. Alleged infringement of constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ultra Vires Nature of the State's Notification:
The petitioners argued that the State Government's notification under the Hyderabad Intoxicating Drugs Act was ultra vires, claiming that the State had no authority to regulate a drug covered by the Central Drugs Act of 1940. The court noted that the Intoxicating Drugs Act, initially enacted in 1333 F in Hyderabad, was amended in 1953 to align with Central laws and received Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. This provision allows State laws to prevail in cases of repugnancy if they have Presidential assent, unless subsequently overridden by Parliament. The court rejected the petitioners' contention that the Intoxicating Drugs Act was repealed by implication upon the application of the Drugs Act, 1940. The court emphasized that Section 2 of the Drugs Act, 1940 explicitly states that its provisions are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws in force, including future amendments.

2. Whether Chloral Hydrate is an Intoxicating and Narcotic Substance:
The petitioners contended that Chloral Hydrate is not an intoxicating and narcotic substance as defined under Section 2(iv) of the Intoxicating Drugs Act. The court noted that the term "narcotic" is not defined in the Act and referred to its ordinary dictionary meaning, which includes producing torpor, sleep, or deadness. The court held that the determination of whether Chloral Hydrate is a narcotic substance involves subjective satisfaction by the Government and is not within the scope of judicial review in these proceedings. The court also dismissed the petitioners' interpretation of the counter-affidavit, which stated that Chloral Hydrate does not contain alcohol, opium, Indian hemp, or other narcotic drugs, as an admission that it is not a narcotic substance.

3. Legality of the Imposition of a License Fee:
The petitioners argued that the imposition of a license fee on the manufacture of Chloral Hydrate was illegal and beyond the State's powers. The court referred to Section 5 of the Intoxicating Drugs Act, which empowers the Government to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of intoxicating drugs and to impose license fees. The court held that since the Intoxicating Drugs Act prevails in the State, the imposition of license fees is legal and within the State's powers. The court further noted that the question of whether such imposition is covered by the State's powers to levy excise duties under the Constitution does not arise in this case.

4. Alleged Infringement of Constitutional Rights:
The petitioners claimed that the notification infringed their rights to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The court noted that Article 19(5) and (6) allow the State to impose reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interest of the general public. The court referred to the counter-affidavit, which stated that the notification was issued to control the improper use of Chloral Hydrate, which was being mixed with liquor to produce intoxication and was harmful to human health. The court held that these were reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public and dismissed the petitioners' objection.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions and dismissed the writ petition with costs, concluding that the State Government's notification was legal and valid. The court emphasized that the Intoxicating Drugs Act, as amended and assented to by the President, prevails in the State and that the restrictions imposed by the notification were reasonable and in the interest of the general public.