Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 543 (1.98 seconds)
Documents citing Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 19 October, 1994

Inertia Industries vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 3 July, 2001

In this connection it may be recalled that in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Stale of Karnataka (supra) a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court categorically stated that potable liquor as a beverage is an intoxicant and depressing drink which is dangerous and injurious to health and is, therefore, an article which is res extra commercium being inherently harmful. A citizen has, Iherefore, no fundamental right to do trade or business in liquor. If right to trade itself does not exist, any fundamental right to do trade or business in liquor. If right to trade itself does not exist, any fundamental right about freedom of trade in respect of potable liquor also can not exist. The Court has further held with reference to Article 47 of the Constitution that intoxicating drinks and drugs are considered injuries to health and impeding the raising of level of nutrition and the standard of living of the people and improvement of the public health and, therefore, it, therefore, ordains the State to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks which obviously include potable liquor, except for medicinal purposes. Article 47 is one of the directive principles which is fundamental in the governance of the country. With these precincts, we do not see how it attracts any part of Article 19 as well as Article 301. Both provisions which are attached with freedom of trade throughout the country on principles of equality and choice. When there is no freedom of trading at all in favour of a person it cannot invite invocation of Article 19(1)(g), the freedom of trading as a fundamental right, and as also free inter-course of trade, commerce and business throughout the territory of India envisaged under Article 301. Hence, no occasion would arise for considering violation of Article 302 to 307.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Big Way Bar And Restaurant vs Commissioner Of Police on 4 December, 2002

72. The total prohibition underlined by the policy decision is arbitrary and illegal for another reason also. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Chintamanrao v. State of M.P. and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (supra) only those professions which are inherently vicious or obnoxious or injurious to health, safety and welfare of general public can be prohibited completely because the right to practise profession or to carry on any occupation does not extend to such inherently vicious and pernicious trade or business. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the trade or business in music, dance and singing is inherently vicious and pernicious warranting a total prohibition in the interest of general public. Such a restriction is an unreasonable restriction. Singing, music and dancing come under the category of amusement or entertainment. The activity of obscenity or indecency being indulged in such performances can always be remedied by appropriate subordinate legislation or by an executive order.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Amarjit Singh Sidhu vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 9 June, 2016

"62. We, therefore, hold that a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as beverage. The State can prohibit completely the trade or business in potable liquor since liquor as beverage is res extra commercium. The State may also create a monopoly in itself for trade or business in such liquor. The State can further place restrictions and limitations on such trade or business which may be in nature different from those on trade or business in articles res commercium. The view taken by this court in K.K.Narula case as well as in the second Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Case is not 21 of 56 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 00:06:14 ::: CWP No.5593 of 2016 (O&M) 22 contrary to the aforesaid view which has been consistently taken by this court so far."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 2 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Kanaka Durga Wines And Ors. vs Govt. Of A.P. And Ors. on 21 April, 1995

It is in this background that we have to now interpret the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and subject to the restrictions under clause (6) protect this fundamental right of the citizens. This right exists in respect of all the trades, businesses etc. except in respect of trade in intoxicating drinks or drugs injurious to health. It will be unnecessary for us to embark upon the amplitude of the right under Article 19(1)(g) vis-a-vis the trade in intoxicating liquor in view of the observation of the Supreme Court as early as in 1951 in State of Bombay v. F.N. Bakara (14 supra) as also in the latest pronouncement in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (17 supra). We have referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in these two cases above and we do not consider it necessary to repeat the same here. In view of the observation of the Supreme Court no person can claim a fundamental right to trade or do business in intoxicating liquor or beverages. Therefore, the prohibition imposed on selling, buying, being in possession and consumption of liquor by Section 7 of the impugned Act, has to be upheld and we accordingly hold that Section 7 is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 69 - Cited by 8 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Grag Martin Distillery Private Limited vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 12 September, 2003

115. Another plea vehemently urged on behalf of the State is that it has enunciated a policy not to permit establishment of new distilleries, that this is a State policy and as such is not amenable to judicial scrutiny. It is well established that the wisdom of a State policy is not justiciable unless it is capricious, arbitrary or whimsical or the policy violates any statutory or constitutional provision. As long as the policy of the Government is not manifestly arbitrary or wholly unreasonable, it cannot be considered as subversive of Article 14. The Court should not embark upon a journey on the uncharted ocean of public policy. The Court may not weigh the pros and cons of the policy nor test the degree of its beneficient or equitable distribution and cannot vary, modify or amend the policy, unless it is arbitrary or violative of any statutory or constitutional provision. If, however, it is demonstrated that the discretionary power camouflaged as a policy has been exercised discarding constitutional injunctions including of equality or the policy or object of a governing legislation, such State policy is susceptible to scrutiny under Article 14, Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka, , Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, ; State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - G Raghuram - Full Document

Kommu Vijaya Raju, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 December, 2019

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in various judgments referred supra, including the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in "Khoday Distilleries Limited v. State of Karnataka" (citation No.3 referred supra), a right to carry on trade in liquor is not a fundamental right guaranteed under Constitution of India.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

R.Sarveswaran vs Union Territory Of Puducherry on 13 June, 2019

“24. Article 47 is one of the directive principles of State policy which is fundamental in the governance of the country and the State has the power to completely prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, distribution and consumption of liquor as a beverage because it is inherently dangerous to human health. Consequently, it is the privilege of the State and it is for the State to decide whether it should part with that privilege, which depends upon the liquor policy of the State. The State has, therefore, the exclusive right or privilege in respect of potable liquor. A citizen has, therefore, no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as a beverage and the activities, which are res extra commercium, cannot be carried on by any citizen and the State can prohibit completely trade or business in potable liquor and the State can also create a monopoly in itself for the trade or business http://www.judis.nic.in 19 in such liquor. This legal position is well settled. The State can also impose restrictions and limitations on the trade or business in liquor as a beverage, which restrictions are in nature different from those imposed on trade or business in legitimate activities and goods and articles which are res commercium. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in Vithal Dattatraya Kulkarni v. Shamrao Tukaram Power [(1979) 3 SCC 212] , P.N. Kaushal v. Union of India [(1978) 3 SCC 558], Krishan Kumar Narula v. State of J&K [AIR 1967 SC 1368] , Nashirwar v. State of M.P. [(1975) 1 SCC 29] , State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co. [(1996) 3 SCC 709] and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1995) 1 SCC 574] .
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Meghana Bar And Restaurant vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 December, 2019

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in various judgments referred supra, including the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in "Khoday Distilleries Limited v. State of Karnataka" (citation No.3 referred supra), a right to carry on trade in liquor is not a fundamental right guaranteed under Constitution of India.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next