The main legal point established in the judgment is that methyl alcohol is not an intoxicating liquor and therefore the provisions of the Abkari Act do not apply to it.

Viswanatha Iyer, J.

1. A common question arises for consideration in these two cases. Methyl alcohol, a highly poisonous liquid declared by Parliament as dangerously inflammable, is stored by the petitioners in tanks constructed according to approved specifications and in premises licensed by the District Collector. The petitioner in O.P. 141 of 1975 needs the substance as a solvent for the production of Calcium Sennosides from Senna leaves and the petitioner in the other Original Petition requires the substance as a raw material for the manufacture of Formaldehyde which in turn is a raw material used in the manufacture of synthetic resins. The State Excise Authorities consider the liquid as an intoxicating liquor and purporting to exercise their powers under the Abkari Act sealed the tank, belonging to one of the petitioners, containing a large quantity of methyl alcohol and took proceedings against it for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act. The Excise Authorities likewise informed the petitioner in the other Original Petition that the petitioner company would be committing an offence by importing and storing methyl alcohol without obtaining a license under the provisions of the Abkari Act and the rules. This action of the State Excise Authorities is challenged by the petitioners in these petitions on the ground that methyl alcohol is not an intoxicating liquor and that the provisions of the Abkari Act (Act 1 of 1977) do not apply to this substance. The question for consideration is whether this stand of the petitioners is correct.

2. Before going into the nature of the rival contentions it is necessary to state the facts in O.P. 141 of 1975. For the manufacture of Calcium Sennosides methyl alcohol also known as 'methanol' is essential and an essentiality certificate from the Director of Industries is a necessary pre condition for procurement of methanol from the Fertiliser Corporation of India and/or obtaining a license for storing methanol. The petitioner obtained that certificate on 10th July 1974. This liquid has been declared to be dangerously inflammable by parliament in enacting the Inflammable Substance Act, 1952 (Central Act 20 of 1952). Consequently the provisions of the Petroleum Act have been made applicable by a notification of the Government of India and a license under the Petroleum Act is necessary to acquire, transport or store methyl alcohol. The Chief Controller of Explosives, Government of India, Nagpur is the licensing authority. The license will be granted under the Petroleum Act only on satisfying certain conditions. A tank has specially to be constructed in accordance with the approved specifications on obtaining a no objection certificate from the District Collector. This is necessary to the grant of the license under the Petroleum Act. On complying with all these formalities the Chief Controller issued a license to the petitioner to store 2,200 gallons of methanol. Thereafter the petitioner purchased a consignment of methanol from the Fertiliser Corporation of India, Bombay, transported the same to the petitioner's factory and was in the process of storing the same in the aforesaid tank. While so on 19th December 1974 the Excise Inspector, Excise Range, Angamaly seized part of the consignment contained in barrels along with the bills and transport documents and sealed the tank containing the balance of the consignment. According to the State Authorities the petitioner has to take out a licence under the Cochin Denatured Spirit and Methyl Alcohol Rules made under the Abkari Act paying a vending fee at the rate of 35 p. per litre under the said Rules to the State Government. For the alleged violation of these rules two officers of the petitioner's Company were prosecuted under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act, arrested and released on bail. So the amount demanded was paid under protest and the license has been applied for by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no license