Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 6 in The M.P. Excise Act, 1915 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The M.P. Excise Act, 1915 [Entire Act]
Section 62 in The M.P. Excise Act, 1915 [Entire Act]
The M.P. Excise Act, 1915
Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Gujarat And Another on 12 September, 1974
The second period of licence also expired in 1991. There
was further change in the policy of the Govt., namely each
District was made a supply area under a separate licence for
two years. Under these circumstances the appellant is not
entitled to any reliefs. It is also further contended that
the conditions in the licence in Ex. P-2 marked in the High
Court should be read harmoniously. It is clear that prior
fixation of the valuation and the payment of the price is
not a condition precedent. The ratio in Godhra Electricity
Co. Ltd. case is inapplicable to the facts of this case.
The sole question is whether fixation of the price of
the plants and machinery at Ujjain and the attached ware-
houses and stock in trade and payment thereof to the appel-
lant is a condition precedent to take possession and deliv-
ery thereof to the respondent on August 28, 1981. At the
outset we may make it clear that, though Sri Nariman con-
tended that the grant of licence to the respondent was in
gross violation of the conditions of the tender as the
respondent did not comply with any of the mandatory condi-
tions stipulated therein and the delivery of the possession
of the distillery in pursuance of the illegal contract is
without jurisdiction, we decline to go into this question,
though prima facie may be plausible to be countenanced, for
the
485
reasons that the grant of licence for the period of 1981 to
1986 to the respondent became final and expired by efflux of
time. It was also contended by Sri Nariman that the valua-
tion made at Rs. 10,53,0 16.45 was not proper and contrary
to the tender's conditions which stipulated deposit of a
minimum of Rs. 19 lacs by the respondent as a condition to
grant licence, and that, therefore, the appellant is enti-
tled to valuation of at least Rs. 19 lacs. We decline to go
into that question also since the relief of valuation was
given up in the High Court. It is also clear from the record
that the appellant had not cooperated in estimating the
value and the Committee of designated officers, namely the
Addl. Collector, the District Excise Officer, Astt. Commis-
sioner of Excise and Accounts Officers was compelled to go
into the question and made an assessment of the value on
January 5, 1984. That valuation was also not questioned in
the writ petition.
Section 6 in The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 [Entire Act]
Har Shankar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr. & Ors on 21 January, 1975
It is settled law by several decisions of this court
that there is no fundamental right to a citizen to carry on
trade or business in liquor. The state under its regulatory
power, has power to prohibit absolutely any form of activity
in relation to an intoxicant, its manufacture, possession,
import and export. No-one can claim, as against the state,
the right to carry on trade or business in any intoxicants,
nor the state be compelled to part with its exclusive right
or privilege of manufacture, sale, storage of liquor. Fur-
ther when the state has decided to part with such right or
privilege to the others, then state can regulate consistent
with the principles of equality enshrined under Art. 14 and
any infraction in this behalf at its pleasure are arbitrary
violating Article 14. Therefore, the exclusive right or
privilege of manufacture, storage, sale, import and export
of the liquor through any agency other than the state would
be subject to rigour of Article 14. Vide Har Shankar & Ors.
v. Dy. Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors., [1975] 2 SCR
254 and State of M. P.v. Nandial Jaiswal., [1987] 1 SCR 1.