( 1 ) POSSESSION and transport of black jaggery although by itself is not an offence, can the vehicles carrying the same, be liable to be seized under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act is the question involved in these writ applications ?

( 2 ) FACTS of each case may be noticed briefly thus: In Writ Petition No. 354 of 2001 the petitioners were transporting 10176 kilograms of jaggery in a lorry bearing No. ABT 5508. The said lorry was seized and such seizure is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that it is illegal and arbitrary. Writ Petition No. 19706 of 2000 is filed assailing the action of the respondents in interfering with their day-to-day business in all varieties of jaggery and alum. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 22705 of 2000 seek quashing of the criminal proceedings and also to declare the seizure of jaggery as illegal and void.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that sale of jaggery is neither prohibited nor restricted under law. It is further contended that in the event of allowing the writ petitions, the loss accrued to the petitioners by keeping the vehicle idle cannot be compensated.

( 4 ) IN Writ Petition Nos. 19706 and 22705 of 2000 the respondents have contended that they did not take any steps whatsoever as a result whereof the business of the petitioners was disturbed.

( 5 ) THE fact that the petitioners had been carrying on business for a long time is not in dispute. Admittedly the respondents also have not contended that carrying on business in black jaggery and alum is by itself an offence. The fact that they had been carrying on business openly is also not in dispute.

( 6 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT have been filed by the State wherein it has merely been contended that black jaggery is used for manufacture of ID liquor. Reliance in support of the seizure of the vehicle and initiation of the proceedings has been placed on Clause (e) of Section 34 of the A. P. Excise Act and Section 7-A of the A. P. Prohibition Act inter alia on the ground that black jaggery is a raw material used for the manufacturing of I. D. liquor.

( 7 ) NO provision of any statute has been shown before us, which prohibits carrying on any business in black jaggery or alum.

( 8 ) BY reason of the provisions of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 a regulatory power has been conferred upon the State to prohibit activities in relation to intoxicant, its manufacture, storing, export, import, sale and possession. A citizen of India may have only a privilege to deal with the intoxicant but has the fundamental right to deal with business or trade of any other commodity which is not an intoxicant or which is not controlled by any law for the time being in force. The law within the meaning of Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India must be a law, which is not unreasonable.

( 9 ) IT is not and cannot be the case of the respondents that price of jaggery is fixed or controlled under any Act. Selling or buying of jaggery or alum is again admittedly not prohibited under the Excise Act. If selling or buying of jaggery or alum was prohibited the respondents would not have stated in the counter-affidavit in Writ Petition Nos. 19706 of 2000 that they have not prevented the petitioners therein from carrying on any business. If carrying on such business were illegal, they would have made attempts to justify their interference.

( 10 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 22705 of 2000 it is averred that the names of the customers had not been supplied.

( 11 ) IS it necessary for any businessman to maintain a register or is it necessary for him to supply the names of the customers is the question which must be posed and answered.

( 12 ) IT has not been pointed out as to under what law the same was required to be done. What is prohibited is sale of arrack. Jaggery or alum is not a commodity, which comes within the purview of the Excise Act. Licence is only