Bombay High Court
M/S. Arss Biofuel Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And. Ors on 13 December, 2017
Bench: A.S. Oka, Riyaz I. Chagla
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
Jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8548 OF 2004
M/s. Arss Biofuel Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. D.B. Sawant, with Mr. Vinayak R. Salokhe, Mr. Ramesh
Lad and Mr. S.S. Thakur for the Petitioner in all matters
except WP No. 10072 of 2004 Mrs. Veena Thadhani
and Mr. Mahesh Gawade for Petitioner in WP No.
10072 of 2004.
Mr. A.B. Vagyani, GP with Mr. Manish M. Pabale, AGP, Ms.
G.R. Golatkar, AAGP, and Mr. R.S. Sawant, AAGP for
Respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION NO. 197 OF 2004
M/s. Tulasee Bio-Ethanol Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 9127 OF 2004
M/s. Shashi Biofuel Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 5491 OF 2005
Poonam Ishwar Bhambhani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 6179 OF 2005
1/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
Goodluck Oil and Paint Works ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2005
M/s. Akshay Industries ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 10072 OF 2004
M/s. Hemant Brothers ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 403 OF 2002
Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 863 OF 2002
Pentokey Organy (India) Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 882 OF 2002
Excel Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 8384 OF 2004
M/s. Patil Alco and Allied Industries Pvt. ...Petitioner
Ltd.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
2/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
WRIT PETITION NO. 8629 OF 2005
M/s. Klj Plasticizers Ltd. Uni-ii. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 4116 OF 2003
M/s. Shri Venkateshwara Petrochemicals ...Petitioner
Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 9397 OF 2003
The Oaisis Alcohol India Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 5232 OF 2005
The Oaisis Alcohol India Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 5989 OF 2004
M/s. Khandoba Prasanna Sakhar ...Petitioner
Karkhana Ltd.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 2861 OF 2005
Sushil Ratanlala Mehta (M/s. Mehta ...Petitioner
Industries)
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 9138 OF 2004
Shriram Trading and Manufacturing ...Petitioner
3/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
Company
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 8381 OF 2004
Sahakar Maharshi Shankkarrao Mohite ...Petitioner
Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 8385 OF 2004
M/s. Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 8416 OF 2004
Star Ocochem Private Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 3462 OF 2004
M/s. Bandra Spirit Depot ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 4121 OF 2003
Siddhanth Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 3456 OF 2004
M/s. Satyam Petrochemicals ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
4/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
WRIT PETITION NO. 1124 OF 2002
Ashok Alco-Chem Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: A.S. OKA AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 29TH SEPTEMBER 2017
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 13TH DECEMBER 2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T :- (Per Riyaz I. Chagla J.)
1. The Petitioners in writ petition no. 8548 of 2004 challenge
the Bombay Denatured Spirit Rules, 1959 ( for short "the Rules")
in so far as they regulate the possession, use, sale, import, export
and transport of denatured spirit after denaturation as being ultra
vires and unconstitutional. The Petition also seeks directions from
this Court that the Petitioners who are manufacturers of denatured
spirit do not require license under the Bombay Prohibition Act,
1949 ( now Maharashtra Prohibition Act and for short "the Act")
for sale, purchase, transport, possession, storage, dehydration,
import, export of denatured spirit under the Act. The other
Petitions have similar challenges and hence these Petitions are
decided by this common judgment.
5/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
2. The Petitioners are manufacturers of denatured spirit and
have obtained a license for manufacturing under the Rules. The
Petitioners claim that they have also obtained the license under
the Rules for the re-distillation process of denatured spirit granted
by the Government of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra
Distillation Spirit and Manufacture of Potable Liquor Rules, 1966.
The Petitioners are manufacturers of Ethanol by re-distillation
process of denatured spirit. The Ethanol manufactured by the
Petitioners is used as ad-mixture in motor spirit. The Petitioners
have described denatured spirit as a basic raw material and after
extracting water, the same is converted into absolute alcohol
having purity of 99.5%. The manufacturing process of the
denatured spirit is done in the distillery from where the Petitioners
have brought the denatured spirit under excise supervision
appointed under Condition No.2 of Licence in Form "I". The
Petitioners supply the absolute alcohol in form of denatured,
called denatured ethanol to various petrochemical companies
either in the State of Maharashtra or outside the State of
Maharashtra. The Petitioners also import denatured spirit from
outside the State of Maharashtra. Petitioners are also exporting
absolute alcohol outside the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioners
state that under the Rules they have to obtain a pass issued by
6/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
Respondent No.3 under 49 and 50 of the Rules for the import and
export of denatured alcohol and this is granted only after paying
import / export fees mentioned in Rule 52 and 59 of the Rules.
The import of denatured spirit is governed by Rules 51 to 56 and
the export of denatured spirit is governed by Rules 57 to 62 of the
Rules.
3. The Petitioners have referred to the Industries
( Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 which was amended in the
year 1956 and particularly item 26 of schedule 1 which reads
thus:-
"26. Fermentation Industries :-
1. Alcohol
2. Other products of fermentation industries,"
The Petitioners have therefore, submitted that by
declaration of fermentation Industries in the year 1956, the Union
of India has taken alcohol and other products of Fermentation
Industries under its control whereby the State has lost the power
to make any law in respect of industries declared by the Union
under its control to be taken over in public interest. Ethanol which
7/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
is manufactured by the Petitioners is covered under Item 26 of the
First schedule of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act,
1951 and hence the State has no powers to take regulatory
measures, for manufacture, sale, possession of the industrial
alcohol or Fermentation Industry. The Petitioners have claimed
that the State has only power to levy duty or fees on alcoholic
beverages for human consumption including regulating the
rectified spirit, which can be diverted for potable purpose. The
power of the State to regulate and control comes to an end, the
moment the rectified spirit becomes denatured.
4. The Petitioners have relied upon the definition of denatured
spirit in Section 2, sub-section (10) of the Bombay Prohibition Act,
which reads thus :-
"denatured" means subjected to a process
prescribed for the purpose of rendering unfit for
human consumption."
The Petitioners have submitted that the Rule making power
of the State under Section 143 of the Act does not empower the
State to impose duty upon alcohol which is not for human
consumption. This is further made clear by the Constitution of
India in Entry No. 51 of List II of Schedule VII, which reads thus:-
8/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
"the duties of the excise on the following goods
manufactured on produce in the State and
contravene duties at the same or lower rates on
similar goods manufactured or perused elsewhere in
India; (a) Alcohol liquors for human consumption...";
Entry 8 of List II of the VIIth Schedule reads thus:-
"intoxicating liquor, i.e. manufacture, production,
transport, purchase or sell of intoxicating liquor"
These entries read together enjoins the State to make law
in respect of intoxicating liquor. The denatured spirit not being
capable of human consumption cannot come under "intoxicating
liquor". The Petitioners have accordingly challenged the Rules
which empower the State to grant licenses for sale and
possession of denatured spirit as not being within the legislative
competence of the State and beyond the Rule making authority
and ultra vires constitution.
5. Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has
referred to the Industries (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2016 notified in the gazette of India on 14th May
2016. The first schedule of the Act has been amended and item
26 reads thus :
9/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
"Fermentation Industries (OTHER THAN POTABLE
ALCOHOL) shall be substituted".
The above amendment is retrospective i.e. on and from the
commencement of the pre amended Act i.e. Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The learned counsel for
the Petitioners has accordingly submitted that from the
Amendment Act it is clear that denatured alcohol, not being
potable alcohol, is exclusively within the perview of the Central
Government and the State Government only has control over
potable alcohol. He has submitted that under Section 2 Sub-
section (10) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (now The Maharashtra
Prohibition Act) denatured spirit is unfit for human consumption.
6. He has submitted that under the Act denatured spirit has
incorrectly been included in the definition of "Liquor" and classified
along with spirits, wine, beer, toddy and all liquids consisting or
containing alcohol. This has been defined in Section 2 subsection
(24) of the Act. The word "spirit" has been defined in Section 2
Sub-section (43) as :
"spirit" means any liquor containing alcohol and
obtained by distillation (whether it is denatured or
not)".
10/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
7. He has submitted that denatured spirit is not capable of
human consumption as defined under the Act and hence cannot
be regulated by the State both under List II Item 8 and as well as
under List II item 51. He has contended that the State
Government albeit having powers under Section 143 of the Act to
frame Rules, these Rules cannot regulate possession, use, sale,
import, export and transport of denatured spirit after denaturation.
He has submitted that the position of law is been well settled by a
seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Synthetic &
Chemicals Vs. State of U.P. And Ors. 1 as well as in the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Bihar Distillery and Anr. Vs. Union of
India,2 and in judgments of the Supreme Court in VAM Organic
Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.(VAM I)3 and State of U.P. And
Ors Vs. VAM Organic Chemicals Ltd. (VAM - II) 4. It has been
consistently held that although the State is competent to regulate
and ensure that rectified spirit / industrial alcohol is not
surreptitiously converted into potable alcohol so that the State is
deprived of revenue, but the power of the State to so regulate
stops once there is denaturation of industrial alcohol. He has thus
1 AIR 1990 Supreme Court p.109.
2 AIR 1997 Supreme Court p.1208.
3 (1997) 2 SCC p.715
4 (2004) 1 SCC p.225.
11/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
submitted that the State has no power to regulate denatured
alcohol as denatured alcohol is incapable of human consumption.
He has referred to other judgments of the Supreme Court which
have relied upon the seven bench judgment in Synthetics and
Chemicals (Supra) and has contended that the Rules by which
the State regulate the possession, import, export and sale of
denatured alcohol is clearly beyond the legislative competence of
the State. He has referred to material from Wikipedia, which has
described the denatured alcohol as being unpalatable and
unsuitable for human consumption.
8. Mr. Vagyani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for
the State has submitted that denatured spirit is capable of being
renatured and hence Section 21 of the Act imposes restriction on
the denaturing spirit. He has submitted that Section 21 (A) of the
Act prohibits any person from altering or attempting to alter
denatured spirit by dilution with water or by any method
whatsoever, with the intention that such spirit may be used for
human consumption as an intoxicating liquor or have in his
possession any denatured spirit which he has reason to believe
that such adulteration or attempt has been made to alter the
denatured spirit. He has further contended that the statute
12/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
imposes the strict imposition of penalty under Section 67 for
contravention of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. He has
also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in VAM
Organic (VAM - II) (Supra) which has recorded the submissions
of the Appellants therein, in particular the possibility to renature
denatured spirit. It is in this context, he has submitted that the
State has a power to take steps to ensure that denatured spirit
remains denatured. He has also relied upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs. Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd.5 wherein this Court has observed
that the tender condition of obtaining an endorsement of the name
and dosage of denaturants cannot be found fault with and that the
quantity and quality of the denaturant should be endorsed by the
State Excise Authority. This Court has relied upon the expert
opinion regarding variation in the denaturants added to the spirit.
This Court has observed from the expert opinion that in the
process of converting SDS to Ethanol of 99.6% concentration, the
desired level of denaturants may not be retained. However, the
question whether the denauration of a spirit is a permanent and
irreversible process is still a question of doubt and needs
consideration. He has submitted that there have been several
5 W.P. No. 6937 of 2005 along with other Petitions decided on21st
February 2006.
13/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
casualties in the case of persons consuming denatured spirit as
'hooch' and he has stated that since there was no control or
regulation over use and sale of denatured spirit, the State had
enacted the Rules.
9. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Bihar Distilleries (Supra), where the Supreme Court has
observed that the State has the power to ensure that rectified
spirit in the course of manufacture or after its manufacturing is not
diverted or misused for potable purposes. He has also relied upon
the Forensic Science Laboratories Reports and the result of
analysis of the products manufactured by the Petitioners which
have borne out the inclusion of Methyl alcohol and Ethanol. These
products tested were seized by the police in Alibaug, Dist. Raigad.
He has contended that this denatured alcohol is capable of being
misused and hence it is necessary for the State to regulate its
sale, possession, import or export etc. in order to prevent
casualties of those consuming denatured alcohol. He has relied
upon a decision of this Court in Saral Manufacturing Company
Vs. State of Maharashtra dated on 19th November 1998 which
has also observed that the State has the power to see that the
rectified spirit is not diverted or misused for the potable purposes.
14/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
He has also submitted that the judgment in Synthetics Ltd.
(Supra) has been referred to a larger bench in the case of State
of U.P. Vs. Lalta Prasad Vaish6, where impact of the Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and its impact on the
power of the State to legislate and / or regulate the industrial
alcohol has been referred to a larger bench. He has, therefore,
submitted that this Court should await the decision of the larger
bench of the Supreme Court.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions. We have
perused the various provisions of the Act and the Rules,
particularly in the context of the power of the State to regulate the
possession, sale, import or export etc. of denatured alcohol.
Section 2 Sub-section (10) of the Act has defined denatured as
being subjected to a process prescribed for the purpose of
rendering unfit for human consumption. The Act thus recognizes
denatured spirit as being incapable of human consumption. This
would be so despite denatured spirit falling within the definition of
liquor in Section 2 Sub-section (24) of the Act as well as within the
definition of spirit in Section 2 Sub-section (43) of the Act. The
State power to regulate alcoholic liquors under the Constitution of
6 (2007) 13 SCC p.463
15/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
India in List II item 51 is restricted to alcoholic liquors for human
consumption and under List II Item 8 is only to regulate the
production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and
sale of 'intoxicating liquors'. Hence the State has no power to
legislate in respect of denatured alcohol which is incapable of
human consumption. Section 143 of the Act provides for the Rule
making power of the State and by which the impugned Rules have
been enacted. The Petitioners have no grievance insofar as the
Rules pertaining to obtaining of license for manufacturing
denatured alcohol and regulating industrial alcohol till its
denatured as provided for under the Rules. The Petitioners have
also obtained license for manufacture under the Rules. The
Petitioners appear to be aggrieved by Rules 23 to 31 which cover
the possession and use of Denatured Spirit and requires a permit
for domestic purposes and license for medical purposes of
registered medical practitioners. Also by the Rules relating to
obtaining wholesale and retail licence for denatured spirit viz.
Rules 32 to 47. As well as the Transport Permit Rules viz. Rules
48 to 50 B and the Import Rules (Rules 51 to 56) and Export
Rules (Rule 57 to 62) which provide for obtaining pass from the
State Government by paying to them import / export fees.
16/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
11. The issue which arises in the Petitions is whether the State
has power to regulate denatured alcohol viz. rectified alcohol after
its denatured. It is clear from the various judgments of the
Supreme Court commencing from Synthetics and Chemicals
(Supra) that the State has the power to regulate so as to prevent
the conversion of alcoholic liquors for industrial use to one for
human consumption and for that purpose regulatory fees imposed
by the State are justified. It is clearly held that the intoxicating
liquor in Entry 8 List II does not cover denatured alcohol which is
incapable of human consumption Paragraphs 80, 94 and 110 of
the judgment read thus:-
"80. It was submitted that the activity in potable
liquor which was regarded safe and exclusive right
of the State in the earlier judgments dealing with
the potable liquor were sought to be justifiable
under the police power of the State, that is, the
power to preserve public health, morals, etc. This
reasoning can never apply to industrial alcohol
manufactured by industries which are to be
developed in the public interest and which are
being encouraged by the State. In a situation of
this nature, it is essential to strike a balance and in
striking the balance, it is difficult to find any
justification for any theory of any exclusive right of
a State to deal with industrial alcohol. Restriction
valid under one circumstance may become invalid
in changing circumstances. Reference may be
made to the observations of Justice Brandeis in
Nashville, Chattangooga & St. Louis Railway v.
17/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
Herbert S. Walters7. See also Nebbia V. People of
the State of New York8. Similar is the effect of the
approach of this Court in Motor General Traders v.
State of Andhra Pradesh9."
"94. It is further contended that Entry 8 in List II
which talks of intoxicating liquors only authorises
the State legislature to enact laws to regulate but
does not empower the State legislature to impose
any levy and the various levies which have been
imposed by the State legislature on industrial
alcohol and even methylated spirit could not be
brought within the ambit of regulatory duties for
purposes of regulation only and therefore could
not be justified under Entry 8 of List II."
"110. In our opinion, therefore so far as the present
case is concerned the State in exercise of powers
under Entry 8 of List II and by appropriate law
regulate and that regulation could be to prevent
the conversion of alcoholic liquors for industrial
use to one for human consumption and for
purpose of regulation, the regulatory fees only
could be justified. In fact, the regulation should be
the main purpose, the fee or earning out of it has
to be incidental and that is why the learned
counsel appearing for the State attempted to use
this terminology or saying that the purpose is
regulation, the earnings are incidental but frankly
conceded that in fact the earnings are substantial.
In fact in some of the excise laws in the States they
have even used terminology relying on the
doctrine of privilege and parting with privilege but
in my opinion it is not necessary for us to go into
these questions in greater detail as we are not here
concerned with the trade in alcoholic liquors
meant for human consumption and therefore in
view of clear demarcation of authority under
7 79 L ed 949 : 294 US 405 (1935)
8 78 L ed 940, 941 : 291 US 502.
9 (1984) 1 SCC 222 : (1984) 1 SCR 594 : AIR 1984 SC 121.
18/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
various items in the three lists, Entry 8 List II could
not be invoked to justify the levies which have
been imposed by the State in respect of alcoholic
liquors which are not meant for human
consumption."
12. The Supreme Court in Bihar Distillery (Supra), following
Synthetics and Chemicals (Supra) has in paragraph 24 (1) held
thus:-
"So far as industries engaged in manufacturing
rectified spirit meant exclusively for supply to
industries (industries other than those engaged in
obtaining or manufacture of potable liquors),
whether after denaturing it or without denaturing it,
are concerned, they shall be under the total and
exclusive control of the Union and be governed by
the I.D.R. Act and the rules and regulations made
thereunder. In other words, where the entire rectified
spirit is supplied for such industrial purposes, or to
the extent it is so supplied, as the case may be, the
levy of excise duties and all other control including
establishment of distillery shall be that of the Union.
The power of the States in the case of such an
industry is only to see and ensure that rectified
spirit, whether in the course of its manufacture or
after its manufacture, it is not diverted or misused
for potable purpose. They can make necessary
regulations requiring the industry to submit
periodical statements of raw material and the
finished product (rectified spirit) and are entitled to
verify their correctness. For this purpose, the States
will also be entitled to post their staff in the
distilleries and levy reasonable regulatory fees to
defray the cost of such staff, as held by this Court in
Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedug Sahakari
Mandali Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, (1992) 1 SCR 391 :
(1992 AIR SCW 554 and Gujchem Distillers India Ltd
19/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
V. State of Gujarat, (1992) 1 SCR 675 : (1992 AIR SCW
1206".
13. The Supreme Court has thus drawn a distinction between
rectified spirit meant exclusively for supply to industries whether
after denaturing it or without denaturing it and the rectified spirit in
the process of manufacture or after manufacture being diverted or
misused for potable purpose. The Supreme Court has held that
the State Government has no power to regulate the former i.e.
rectified spirit which is exclusively for supply to industries other
than for potable purposes. This is further made clear by the
Supreme Court in its decision in State of UP Vs. VAM Organics
Chemical Ltd. (VAM - II) (Supra), relying on is decision in VAM -
I (Supra), paragraph 43 of the judgment reads thus:-
"43. Considering the various authorities cited, we
are of the view that the State Government is
competent to levy fee for the purpose of ensuring
that industrial alcohol is not surreptitiously
converted into potable alcohol so that the State is
deprived of revenue on the sale of such potable
alcohol and the public is protected form consuming
such illicit liquor. But this power stops with the
denaturation of the industrial alcohol. Denatured
spirit has been held in VAM Organics - I, to be
outside the seisin of the State Legislature.
Assuming that denatured spirit may by whatever
process be renatured (a proposition which is
seriously disputed by the respondents) and then
converted into potable liquor this would not give
the State the power to regulate it. Even according
20/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
to the demarcation of the fields of legislative
competence as envisaged in Bihar Distillery,
industrial alcohol for industrial purposes falls
within the exclusive control of the Union and
according to Bihar Distillery "denatured rectified
spirit", of course, is wholly and exclusively
industrial alcohol."
14. It is thus clear that the Supreme Court has consistently held
that the industrial alcohol after denaturing falls within the exclusive
control of the Union. We are of the view that although the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Synthetics (Supra) has been
referred to a larger bench in State of UP Vs Lalta Prasad Vaish
(Supra), this does not alter the well settled position that the power
of the State stops with denaturation of industrial alcohol. In fact,
the issues referred to the larger bench are different viz in relation
to the provision of the Industrial (Development and Regulation)
Act, and whether the provisions of the Act oust the States powers
to legislate under the concurrent list and whether the States
powers is also ousted by the Central Government vide Entry 52 of
List I and by the legislation of Central Government to regulate the
use of industrial alcohol so as to prevent it from being used as an
intoxicating liquor. We are accordingly of the view that the present
Petitions are to be decided in the light of the law already laid down
by the Supreme Court. We accordingly pass the following order:
21/23
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
ORDER
(a) The Bombay Denatured Spirit Rules, 1959 to the extent that they regulate the possession, use, sale, import, export and transport of denatured spirit viz. Rules 23 to 62 are ultra vires and unconstitutional and are struck down.
(b) There shall be no licence required under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for sale, purchase, transport, possession, storage, dehydration, import and export of denatured spirit.
(c) We hereby clarify that the power of the State Government in the case of rectified spirit supplied for industrial purposes is only to see and ensure that rectified spirit, whether in the course of its manufacture or after its manufacture, is not diverted or misused for potable purpose. The State can make necessary regulations requiring the industry to submit periodical statements of raw material and the finished product (rectified spirits) and is entitled to verify their correctness.
22/23 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::
203-WP-8548-2004.DOC
(d) The Writ Petitions are made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs.
( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. ) ( A.S. OKA, J. ) 23/23 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 02:06:29 :::