9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Gujarat for prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating liquors. The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 has been in operation in the State of Gujarat and for the consideration of the issue before us it would be appropriate to go back to The State of Bombay and Anr. v. F.N. Balsara [1951]2SCR682 . In this, one of the first decisions of this Court on the subject, the Court declared that the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 were invalid so far as they effected the buying, possession, consumption or use or selling of liquor medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol. Pursuant to that decision, the Bombay Prohibition Act was amended and Section 24A was inserted in Chapter III of the Act exempting m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licence which could, subject to the provisions of any rules made in that behalf, be granted by an officer authorised in that behalf by an order in writing by the State Government, provided, however, that no such licence would be necessary for the import or export of such article to the extent of such quantity as may be prescribed. To give effect to Section 59AA the Government of Gujarat promulgated the Gujarat Articles Unfit for Use as Intoxicating Liquor (Manufacture and Import) Regulation Rules, 1966. The rules deal with, among other things, the regulation of the import of spirituous articles A 'spirituous article means, by Rule 2(h), any of the articles mentioned in Section 24A of the Bombay. Prohibition Act, 1949. Rule 11 declares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Trade and commerce) Control Act, 1955, the Central Government issued a notification declaring Eau-de-cologne to be a spirituous preparation within the meaning of that Act. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat challenging the validity of that notification and the High Court, by its judgment dated April 24, 1970, allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification on the ground that objections had not been invited before issuing the notification. It has not been shown to us whether a fresh notification has been issued or not thereafter. 4. On August 12, 1970 the petitioners applied for a licence for importing Eau-de-cologne and essences into the State of Gujarat from Hyderabad in the State of Andhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition and to seek a decision from the excise authorities. By its order dated January 6, 1982 this Court permitted the writ petition to be withdrawn with the observation that the Prohibition and Excise Authorities should dispose of the petitioners' application on merits within two months. A fresh application for a S.A. 2 licence was made by the petitioners. The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise rejected the application on the ground mainly that some information called for by the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Department had not been furnished by the petitioners. The matter seems to have remained there, and the petitioners then filed the present writ petitions. 5. During the pendency of the writ petitions this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure and Import) Regulation Rules 1966 came into force, you were importing Eau-de-Cologne and its approximate quantity given by you and looking to the documents of this office the quantity is more and its use, as mentioned herein above, is an sea shore areas and it has also been often found on inspection that such quantity of products is misused for drinking. Considering the above facts, there is every possibility of misusing for other purposes except Cosmetic purpose, of quantity for which you intend to import and therefore in the best interests of full Prohibition policy of the Hon'ble Government of Gujarat, your application for grant of S.A. 2 Licence is hereby rejected, which may please be noted. 6. The petitioners allege th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s effected by the petitioners with the sales made in coastal areas. There was no justification, it was said, for refusing the import permit and that the mere fact that cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act had been launched against the petitioners could constitute no ground for such refusal when those cases had ended in acquittal. It was also urged that the import of Eau-de-cologne is exempt from the operation of Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules of 1966 requiring the importer to obtain a licence inasmuch as it has been exempted under the Spirituous Preparations (Inter-State Trade and Commerce) Control Act, 1955, The further contention was that Section 24A read with Section 6A(7) of the Bombay Prohibition Act declares that medicinal and toilet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
