Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.V.N.SASTRY, P.S.MISHRA
Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Century Wines, Yanam - Respondent
Decided On : 08-14-95
PROHIBITION AND EXCISE - THROUGH TRANSPORT PERMITS - CONDITIONS - REASONABLENESS - COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE HAS IMPLIED POWERS TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF PERMITS - CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY COMMISSIONER ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO PREVENT ILLEGAL TRADE IN PROHIBITED LIQUOR - ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED BY COURT TO FACILITATE TRANSPORTATION OF PROHIBITED LIQUOR.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions were filed challenging an order issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, which imposed certain conditions for the grant of through transport permits for the transportation of Indian Made Liquor (IML) through the State of Andhra Pradesh. The main condition was that only such applications of transporters shall be accepted who can arrange for transportation of IML in lorries/vehicles which are having doors to close and locking facility.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise has implied powers to impose conditions for the grant of permits, besides the conditions imposed by the rules. The court found that the conditions imposed by the Commissioner were reasonable and necessary to prevent illegal trade in prohibited liquor. However, the court also found that the conditions may be impractical and may completely destroy the trade of the writ petitioners-respondents if it is not suitably modified.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise has the power to impose conditions for the grant of permits, besides the conditions imposed by the rules? 2. Whether the conditions imposed by the Commissioner are reasonable and necessary to prevent illegal trade in prohibited liquor?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise has implied powers to impose conditions for the grant of permits, besides the conditions imposed by the rules. The court relied on the principle of implied powers, which states that where a statute confers powers or duties in general terms, all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make such legislation effective are included by implication. 2. The court held that the conditions imposed by the Commissioner were reasonable and necessary to prevent illegal trade in prohibited liquor. The court noted that Yanam, a small pocket at the sea shore and connected to the land only through the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, has been noticed as a destination for all such people who wanted to take advantage of the presence of such a territory in the vicinity of the prohibited area.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals to the extent that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise was directed to permit the transportation of prohibited liquor in cartons which are properly sealed by the prohibition enforcement authorities at the entry of the cartons into the territory of Andhra Pradesh and ensuring that the cartons are not delivered on the way and are not interfered with until the cartons are taken beyond the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
( 1 ) THE Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and others have preferred these appeals against an order in W. P. M. P. 17319/95 in W. P. 12019/95 and other applications in writ petitions aforementioned. Writ Petitioner- respondents have moved the court with aplication under Art. 226 of the constitution against an order in Cr. No. 2288/95/dpe/c2, dated 10-5-1995 issued on behalf of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise which is as follows:"applications are being received for issue of Through Transport Permits for transportation of IML through the State of Andhra Pradesh. The applicants are informed that in future they have to arrange lorries/ vehicles which are having doors to close and locking facility for transportation of IML through the State of Andhra Pradesh. In future only such applications of such applicants will be considered who can arrange for transportation of IML with die above mentioned facility. "the main objection to the above is that the restriction that only such applications of the transporters shall be accepted who can arrange for transportation of IML in lorries/vehicles which are having doors to close and locking facility, is a restriction on the freedom of trade and is not spelt out anywhere either in the act under which prohibition has been introduced on the trade and business of hard liquor in the State of Andhra Pradesh or under the Rules including the rules which prescribe the conditions for grant of permit. The main argument, however, on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondents for setting aside the above order is that the Commissioner does not have the power to do so, that such a condition can be introduced only by a statutory prescription and that any statutory prescription will be unreasonable and violative of the freedom of trade guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (d) read with Art. 301 of the Constitution of india. The petitioner-respondents also filed applications for interim directions and the court has, ordered as follows:". . . . . I am convinced that the conditions, prima facie, do not appear to be reasonable. The other ground for rejecting issuance of through transport permit to the petitioner as he was involve d in Crime No. 93/94-95 is also not justified inasmuch as the name of the petitioner does not find a place in the F. I. R. "he has accordingly directed the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) to issue through transport permits to the petitioners without reference to the criminal complaint or without insisting on closed door containers within 48 hours. However, learned Single Judge has stated :". . . . . . IF the respondents find that the goods intended to the destination at yanam are being diverted, it is always open to them to take action against the petitioner according to law. "learned counsel for the petitioner-respondents has, before us, developed the ground of unreasonableness by pointing out in particular that only such transports of IML are subjected to the above conditions which are intended to the destination in Yanam which is a part of the Union Territory of Pondichery and not to any other destination in the country and only such transporters are subjected to the imposition of the above conditions who are transporting IML to Yanam and these restrictions are discriminatory and arbitrary and do not qualify as reasonable restrictions under Art. 19 (6) of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) THE constitutional rights under Art. 19 of the Constitution or under art. 301 of the Constitution are subject to the laws made under Arts. 302 and 304 as well as 19 (6) of the Constitution. It is difficult to think that in case any laws are made either by the Parliament or the State Legislatures, the freedom extends to the trade, commerce and business in complete disregard to the common law principles that every trade and business should be fair and honest and that it should in no way be injurious to the public at large and/or cause harm to the interest of the publ
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
