2017 (7) TMI 1399 - HC - Indian Laws

Restraint on agents, servants, officers, departments, etc. taking any step which would nullify, interfere with and/or override the effect and operation of the order - Notifications all dated 10th July 2017 - HELD THAT - It would premature and not be appropriate at this stage to pass any orders which would have the effect of preempting the State Government from amending the existing Rules. It is required to be noted that under the three impugned Notifications the State Government has invited objections and suggestions with respect to the proposed amendments which would be considered by the Government. The Petitioners have submitted their objections and suggestions accordingly. The Petitioners cannot assume that their representations shall not be considered favorably or otherwise. It is noted that the Writ Petitions impugn only the Government Resolution and Circular. The Petitioners would be required to challenge the amended Rules if and when the amended Rules come into force. It is not possible to grant any relief to the Petitioner in anticipation that the amended Rules will come into force upon the final Notifications being issued. Notices of Motion are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Government Resolution and Circular prohibiting the use of PET bottles for storing alcoholic beverages.
2. Impugned Notifications dated 10 July 2017 proposing amendments to the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
3. Legislative competence of the State Government in framing Rules under the Act.
4. Concerns regarding the State Government's intention to notify the Rules.
5. Consideration of objections and suggestions by the State Government.
6. Anticipation of amended Rules coming into force.
7. Comparison with a judgment from the Gujarat High Court.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Petitioners contested the Government Resolution and Circular prohibiting the use of PET bottles for storing alcoholic beverages. An interim order was issued by the Court on 1 April 2016 restraining the Respondents from implementing these directives.

Issue 2:
The Respondents issued impugned Notifications on 10 July 2017 proposing amendments to the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, focusing on using only glass bottles for alcoholic beverages. Objections and suggestions were invited before finalizing the amendments.

Issue 3:
The Petitioners argued that the State Government lacked legislative competence to frame Rules under the Act, especially when Central legislations governed the field. They feared the State Government would promptly notify the Rules post the objection deadline.

Issue 4:
The Addl.G.P. contended that the Petitioners' apprehension was baseless as the draft Rules were already published, and a mandatory legislative process required them to be laid before the State Legislature for at least 30 days.

Issue 5:
The Court declined to preempt the State Government from amending the Rules, emphasizing that objections and suggestions were being considered. The Petitioners' representations were submitted, and modifications were possible during the legislative process.

Issue 6:
The Court refused to follow the Gujarat High Court's directive in a similar case, emphasizing that relief could only be granted once the amended Rules came into force, not in anticipation of their implementation.

Issue 7:
The Notices of Motion were dismissed, with no costs imposed, based on the above analysis and the specific circumstances of the case.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key legal issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's reasoning leading to the final decision to dismiss the Notices of Motion.