JUDGMENT

L.M.SHARMA, CJI.

(1) THE petitioners in all these cases (including the appellants in the civil appeals) have challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments made to the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short

"THE principal Act") by the Gujarat Legislature prohibiting possession of rotten gur in excess of the prescribed limit without a permit and regulating manufacture etc. of rotten gur. The provisions which have been challenged are those of Section 2(39-A) defining "rotten gur". Section 64 imposing restriction on possession of "rotten gur", Section 64-A regulating manufacture etc. of "rotten gur" and Section 70-A providing for imposition of punishment for contravention of the relevant statutory provisions. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that gur and jaggery are popular commodities, consumed by humans and cattle and used in the preparation of sweets and Ayurvedic medicines as also in certain industries; and, consequently the provisions under challenge are causing serious difficulties in carrying on the business not only in "rotten gur" but also injaggery and gur, which are not "rotten".

(2) THE main points rais