Judgment

FAZL ALI, J.: These appeals arise from the judgment & order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay upon the application of one F. N. Balsara (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), assailing the validity of certain specific provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act No. XXV of 1949), as well as of the Act as whole. The petitioner, Claiming to be an Indian citizen, prayed to the High Court inter alia for a writ of mandamus against the State of Bombay & the Prohibition Commissioner ordering them to forbear from enforcing against him the provisions of the Prohibition Act & for the issue of a writ of mandamus ordering them (1) to allow him to exercise his right to possess, consume & use certain articles, namely, whisky, brandy, wine, beer, medicated wine, eau-de-cologne, etc., & to import & export across the Customs frontier & to purchase, possess, consume & use any stock of foreign liquor, eau-de-cologne, lavender water, medicated wines & medicinal preparations containing alcohol, & (2) to forbear from interfering with his right to possess these articles & to take no steps or proceedings against him, penal or otherwise, under the Act. The petitioner also prayed for a similar order under S. 45, Specific Relief Act, against the respondents. The High Court agreeing with some of the petitioner s contentions & disagreeing with others, declared some of the provisions of the Act to be invalid & the rest to be valid. Both the State of Bombay & the petitioner being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court have appealed to this Court after obtaining a certificate from the High Court under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution.

2. The Act in question was passed by the Legislature of the Province of Bombay as it was constituted in 1949, & was published in the Bombay Govt. Gazette on 20-5-1949, & came into force on 16-6-1949. The Act consists of 148 sections with 2 schedules & is divided into 11 chapters. It is both an amending & consolidating Act & incorporates the provisions of the Bombay Abkari Act which it repeals & also those of the Bombay Opium & Molasses Acts & contains new provisions for putting into force the policy of prohibition which is one of the objects mentioned in the preamble of the Act. The most important provisions in Chapter I is the definition of liquor which has been vigorously assailed as being too wide & therefore beyond the powers of the Provincial Legislature. Chapter II relates to establishment & is not relevant to the present appeal. Chap. III, which contains a number of prohibitions in regard to liquor as defined in the Act, is said to enact sweeping provisions which are liable to be assailed Ss. 12 & 13 & the relevant provisions of Ss. 23 & 24 in this Chapter may be quoted: "S. 12. No person shall (a) manufacture liquor; (b) construct or work any distillery or brewery; (c) import, export, transport or possess liquor; or (d) sell or buy liquor." " S. 13. No person shall (a) bottle any liquor for sale; (b) consume or use liquor; or (c) use, keep or have in his possession any materials, still, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the manufacture of any liquor." "S. 23. No person shall (a) commend, solicit the use of, offer any intoxicant or hemp, or (b) incite or encourage any member of the public or any Class of individuals of the public generally to commit any act which frustrates or defeats the provisions of this Act, or any rule, regulation or order made thereunder, or ........" "S. 24(1). No person shall print or publish in any newspaper, news-sheet, book-leaflet, booklet or any other single or periodical publication or otherwise display or distribute any advertisement or other matter : (a) which commends, solicits the use of or offers any intoxicant or hemp, (b) which is calculated to encourage or incite any individual or Class of individuals or the public generally to commit an offence under this Act, or to commit a breach of or to evade the provisions of any