1954 (9) TMI 43 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality of recovery of license fees as an arrear of land revenue under the C.P. and Berar Excise Act, 1915.
2. Doctrine of frustration rendering the contracts void.
3. Alleged breach of contract by the State Government due to sponsoring a temperance movement.
4. Legality of the State Government's action in setting aside the Excise Commissioner's orders.
5. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 32 of the C.P. and Berar Excise Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Constitutionality of Recovery of License Fees as an Arrear of Land Revenue

The petitioner argued that the provisions in the C.P. and Berar Excise Act, 1915, authorizing the recovery of the license fee as an arrear of land revenue are repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 mandates that the State shall not deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The judgment elaborated on the interpretation of 'the State' and 'person' under Articles 12 and 14, respectively. It was concluded that Article 14 can be invoked only when the State engages in commercial ventures outside its ordinary governmental functions. The court held that regulation of excisable articles and realization of fees is a normal governmental function, thus not infringing Article 14. Furthermore, the court found that the coercive processes for recovery do not violate Articles 14 or 19(5) due to the State's administrative responsibilities.

Issue 2: Doctrine of Frustration

The petitioner claimed that the contracts became void under the doctrine of frustration due to the temperance movement affecting liquor sales. The court noted that the determination of such facts falls within the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts. It declined to adjudicate on this matter under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226, suggesting that the petitioner could pursue civil litigation to enforce any legal claims.

Issue 3: Alleged Breach of Contract by the State Government

The petitioner contended that the State Government breached the contracts by sponsoring the temperance movement, thereby affecting sales. Similar to the second issue, the court indicated that the resolution of these factual disputes is the domain of civil courts. It emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not suitable for determining such civil disputes.

Issue 4: Legality of State Government's Action

The petitioner alleged that the Excise Commissioner had sanctioned the remission of license fees, but the State Government overrode these orders. The court found no conclusive evidence that the Excise Commissioner had indeed sanctioned the remission. It noted that the petitioner lacked personal knowledge of the matter and that any such orders would have been communicated officially. Consequently, the court did not address whether the State Government had the authority to override the Excise Commissioner's orders.

Issue 5: Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 32

The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 32 of the C.P. and Berar Excise Act to remit the license fees. The court clarified that the petitioner's request was for reducing the fees or accepting the surrender of licenses, which falls under Section 33, not Section 32. The court noted that the petitioner did not follow the procedure for surrendering the license as outlined in Section 33, which requires a one-month notice and payment of fees for the remaining period. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no failure on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction under Section 32.

Conclusion:

The petition was dismissed on all grounds. The court found no violation of constitutional provisions or statutory duties by the State or its officials. However, it ordered that the outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner and decided that there would be no order as to costs.