The State Government has the authority to regulate the possession and sale of methyl alcohol under the Poisons Act, and the relevant rules are valid.

Per : Hon’ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present petition was initially filed for quashing the order dated 12.02.2012 passed by District Magistrate (Licensing Authority) by which the M.A.-4 license of the applicant was suspended for committing repeated violation of Rule 17-D, 17-E, 17-F, 17-G of U.P. Poisons (Regulation of Possession and Sale) Rules 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules 1921”) as well as non-obtaining the license of M.A.-2 in pursuance of order dated 28.05.2011 with further direction to show cause why his M.A.-4 license may not be cancelled. Subsequently, an amendment was also made in the writ petition with the permission of this Court dated 12.11.2018, by which vires of Rule 17-B(b), Rule 17-D(d), Rule 17-F was challenged on the ground that the same is beyond the power of the State Government under Section 2 r/w Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919.

3. The petitioner is a company that purchases methyl alcohol to use it for industrial purposes for which the petitioner company had also obtained license M.A.-4 as per Rule 17-B(c) of Rules 1921. The M.A.-4 license permits the license holder to purchase, possess, use or sell methyl alcohol for medical, scientific, educational, industrial or professional purposes. The inspection was made by the District Excise Officer, Jyotibha Phule Nagar, on 20.05.2011 of the premises of the petitioner wherein certain violations of the Rules 1921 were found, which includes purchasing the methyl alcohol from non-licensed unit. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 01.06.2011 was issued to the petitioner, which he replied to on 13.06.2011. Thereafter, the District Nodal Committee, in its meeting dated 11.08.2011 directed the petitioner to take a license in form M.A.-2. Thereafter, a letter was also issued on 12.10.2011 directing the petitioner to obtain M.A.-2 license. The petitioner challenged the resolution dated 11.08.2011, the order dated 12.10.2011 as well as the vires of Rule 17-D of Rules 1921 before this Court by way of WRIT- C No. 70182 of 2011, which was partly allowed vide order dated 07.12.2011 by quashing the resolution dated 11.08.2011 and the order dated 12.10.2011 with further direction to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner’s reply dated 13.06.2011. However, the Court refused to declare Rule 17-D(d) of the Rules 1921, as ultra vires. In pursuance of the order dated 07.12.2011 passed in WRIT- C No. 70182 of 2011, the impugned order dated 12.02.2012, has been passed, which is under challenge.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not in dispute that the applicant is purchasing and storing methyl alcohol for use in industrial purposes. It is not involved in the sale of methyl alcohol. An M.A.-2 license is for possession for sale as well as sale of methyl alcohol. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be directed to obtain M.A.-2 license. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State, under Section 2 of the Poisons Act, 1919 has power to regulate the possession for sale as well as sale of any poison. Therefore, the State cannot frame rules for regulating the possession of poison for any other purpose except the sale. Therefore, Rule 17-B(b), 17-B(c), 17-D(d) and 17-F of the Rules 1921 are ultra vires to Section 2 of the Poisons Act, 1919 being beyond the power of the State Government because the same lies within the power of Central Government u/s 3 of the Poisons Act, 1919.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner himself obtained M.A.-4 license under Rule 17-B(c). Therefore, it is bound to follow Rules 17-B, 17-D and 17-F of the Rules 1921. It is further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that Section 8 of the Poisons Act, 1919 gives power to