SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(AP) 575

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOTILAL B.NAIK, V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
Jagriti - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
W.P. No. 11834/92
Decided On : 12-31-93
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. A. Ramalingeswara Rao

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act, 1937, Secs. 1(3)(b) and 2 Proviso and A.P. Excise Act, 1968, Secs. 1(1)(b), 15, 17, 80, 20, 33 and 67 Constitution of India, Article 47 - Provisions of Excise Act and Prohibition Act are not ultra vires of Constitution.

       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Delegation of legislative powers - Power conferred on State Government to notify commencement of provisions of A.P. Excise Act - Proviso to Sec. 2 of A.P. Prohibition Act enabling withdrawal of the Act from some regions of State - Docs not amount to allegation of powers by legislature or delegation of legislative powers to Executive Government - Delegation is Constitutional.

       Held : The provisions contained in the two enactments viz., A.P. (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act, 1937 and A.P. Excise Act, 1968 have their objective and anxiety to combine temporance with tax. The Prohibition Act envisages total prohibition and the Excise Act provides for restrictions which may gradually lead to the some result. Therefore, Section 1(3) (b) (ii) and the proviso to Section 2 of the Prohibition Act and Sections 1(2) (b) of the Excise Act do not contravene the provisions-of Art. 47 of the Constitution of India, Sections 15, 17, 18, 20, 33 and 67 of the Excise Act are valid.

       Conferment of powers on the State Government to notify commencement of the provisions of the Excise Act of the proviso to Sec. 2 of the Prohibition Act enabling withdrawal of the provisions of the Prohibition Act from such regions in which the prohibition Act has been brought into force does not amount to delegation of powers by the Legislature or delegation of essential legislative powers to the Executive Government. Even assuming that if amounts to delegation of legislative powers, there are sufficient policy guidelines in the preamble and provisions of the enactments in Question as to justify such delegation as reasonable and therefore constitutional.

       

( 1 ) THIS public interest litigation is filed by Jagriti, a non-political, secular and rural development organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act. It claims that its activities extend to a number of villages in Totapalli, Guduru Mandal and Indukurpet Mandal of Nellore District it claims that it runs 100 non-formal educational centres in 63 villages in Nellore and Kavali Divisions. The relief which the petitioner seeks are -- a declaration that Sub-sec. (3) of S. 1 and S. 2 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act, 1937 and clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 1 of A. P. Excise Act, 1968, are illegal and void. It seeks a consequential declaration that G. O. Ms. No. 966 Revenue dt. 6-10-1969 and G. O. Ms, No. 989 Revenue dt. 11-10-1969 are void. A further declaration which it seeks is that Ss. 15, 17, 18, 20, 33 and 67 of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968, and the rules made thereunder in so far as they enable the sale of liquor, are violative of Articles 21, 40 and 47 read with Article 245 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act, 1937 had the effect of rendering the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Abkari Act, 1886, ineffective by virtue of S. 2 of the former Act. Section 1 (3) of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act, 1937, hereinafter referred to as the prohibition Act provides as follows: "1 (3) (a ). This section and Sections 3 and 6 shall come into force in the whole of the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh at once. (b)The rest of this Act shall come into force - (i ). . . . . (ii) in any local area in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh on such date as the State Government, may, by notification, appoint. Section 2 deals with repeals and reads as follows: "from the date on which the provisions of this Act other than Ss. 1, 3 and 6 came into force in any local area, the enactments mentioned in the Schedule shall cease to be in force in such area to the extent specified in the fourth column thereof: Provided that the State Government may, by notification declare that the provisions of this Act other than Ss. 1, 3 and 6 shall cease to be in force in any local area on such dates as may be specified in the notification and thereupon the enactments mentioned in the Schedule with any subsequent statutory modifications thereof shall revive and come into force in such area with effect on and from such date. Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that if a notification is issued in pursuance of the foregoing proviso, in respect of any area which formerly formed of the State Banganapalle the enactments mentioned in the Schedule with any subsequent statutory modification thereof shall come into force in such area with effect on and from such date as may be specified in the notification. " The whole of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Abkari Act, 1886 is one of the enactments included in the Schedule. The effect of Sec. 1 (3) (b) (ii) is that the State Government has got the power to declare that the provisions of the Prohibition Act other than Sees. 1, 3 and 6 shall cease to be in force in any local area on such dates as may be specified in the notification. The State Government is also given the power to provide by notification that the provisions of the Prohibition Act will come into force in any local area on such date as the State Government may appoint. Counsel submits that this power of bringing into force the provisions of a legislation to any local area in the State is a legislative power and the conferment of such power to apply the provisions of the Act by a notification without taking the legislature into confidence is illegal and unsustainable. He submits that it amounts to excessive delegation and also delegating essential legislative powers. He submits that the proviso to S. 2 also suffers from the same infirmity -- in that the Government is given power to declare by notification that provisions of the Prohibition Act o





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top