JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. In all these appeals challenge is to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’). Challenge in the writ petitions was to the vires of certain provision of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (in short the ‘Act’). Essentially the prayers were as follows :

“(a) appropriate writ, order or direction, incorporation of Sec. 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of the Excise Act may be declared ultra-vires and be struck down;

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, amendment in the Excise Act, 1950 by incorporation of Section 9B may be declared ultra-vires and be struck down;

(c) by a further appropriate, writ, order or direction impugned order dated 16.5.2000, passed by respondent No. 2 may be declared invalid and may be quashed and set aside;

(d) Pending decision, if any further order is made or action is taken prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same may also be quashed and set aside.”

2. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in the writ petitions challenging the vires of the provisions were founded on the following allegations :

1. The provisions of the amendment are contrary to Article 254 of the Constitution and without the assent of the President those are ultra vires;

2. the amended provisions are repugnant to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure;

3. The amended provisions confer unguided powers on the Excise Authorities;

4. By Section 9(B) the remedy of judicial review is taken away and the petitioner is remediless.”

3. The respondent-State prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the Act was within the legislative competence of the State Government under Item 8 read with Items 64 & 65 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution and is a special Act dealing with right of the State to regulate production, transfer, storage, possession and sale of liquor or intoxicating drugs.

4. The High Court noted that 75 similar petitions were filed before the Jaipur Bench raising similar contentions.

5. Following the view of the Jaipur Bench the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the impugned judgment.

6. In support of the appeals, it was submitted that as per the provisions of Sections 451 to 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Cr.P.C’), the criminal court has jurisdiction to release any property seized or recovered during any enquiry or trial. By the insertion of Section 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Amendment Ordinance, 2000 which was later on substituted by the Amendment Act Along with Section 54A, Section 69 has also been amended and as per amended sub section (6) of Section 69 it has been provided that whenever any means of conveyance is seized in connection with commission of offence under the Act, the Excise Commissioner or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government shall have and notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other Authority shall not have jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or release of such conveyance. Grievance was that in view of the aforesaid provisions the criminal courts were not invoking jurisdiction and the power of the court has been taken away. Challenge to Section 54A and Section 69(6) were made on the ground that they are unconstitutional, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 301 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the powers conferred on judicial courts by virtue of Sections 451 to 457 Cr.P.C. has been curtailed or have been taken away and indirectly the power of revision of Sessions judge or the High Court and inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been curtailed.

7. In response, learned counsel for the State made the ref