In this case, the problem was that prohibition for the consumption of alcohol and liquor in the state of Andhra Pradesh by agitation of woman. And other is that also the buying and selling of alcohol and manufacturing of all drinks which have alcohol, or are injurious to health.
State Legislature has enacted the provision for “Andhra Pradesh prohibition act,1995” in which all the rules for prohibition of consumption and exempted those who have the medical need, buying and selling, or the manufacturing the alcohol drinks. And other important points of the case are following.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The matter arise that “The Prohibition of sale and consumption of intoxication liquor exempt to the medical requirements, in state of Andhra Pradesh.” Due to this, many industries in Andhra Pradesh which are manufacturing the intoxicated liquors are under the influence of rule made under the Andhra Pradesh excise act,1968 and the licence of manufacturing the intoxicating liquor are for one year for making the alcohol liquor. After the act of 1995, the government of Andhra Pradesh refused to regenerate/renew the licence for manufacturing the intoxicating liquor.
For approval, all the licences were presented in the high court of Andhra Pradesh by the writ petition for the purpose of the manufacturing the intoxicated liquor, which is the state legislation of the Andhra Pradesh. It says that the section7 of the prohibition act is for the sale, consumption, possession and manufacturing of the alcohol liquor. But the manufacturer says that in section 7 of the prohibition act is not for the manufacturers of the alcohol but for the buying and selling or the consumption of alcohol. “Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh prohibition act that is the selling, buying, being in possession and consumption of liquor, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this act, or as the case may be, the Andhra Pradesh excise act 1968,in hereby prohibition” .
So the full bench opined for the manufacturers of the intoxicating liquors which state legislature were prohibited for the renewal of the licence for manufacturers. The full bench judgement finalized that not to be considered for the state of Andhra Pradesh prohibition act provision of section 7, it is unnecessary to go with the question of the state of Andhra Pradesh legislative act were made in view of interpretation placed by it on section 7 of the prohibition act and this judgement was came on 28th April 1995.
Against the judgement of the high court of the Andhra Pradesh, the state of Andhra Pradesh preferred the special leave petition. “They were entertained by this court and notice issued to the respondents.” It was directed that pending further orders as the date of the said order shall be maintained. The writ petition/respondent were given the permit to manufacturers of the product with their storage stocks of the raw material upto 16th august 1995, regarding as the permitted manufacturers were produced their final product at the said date, otherwise it is irrespective of the fact. If manufacturers does not produce their product then the other date were directed by the state government with reference to the law and subject to the conditions laid down in the letter of the commissioner of prohibition and excise date may 24 1995. “It was also clarified that the said order shall not process the governor of Andhra Pradesh from issuing of an ordinance seeking to amend the acts if he is so advised with a view to remove the alleged of defected points out by the full bench.”
On 12 October 1995, the state legislature of Andhra Pradesh enacted the act – Andhra Pradesh prohibition act, 1995 and pass an ordinance which have some certain changes of the provision and those changes are not accurate for the purpose. So in Andhra Pradesh, many of the manufacturers of Intoxication liquors has come forward for this reason with the writ petition in the supreme court under the article 32 of the constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the act 35 of 1995.
There were many issues arise by the writ petition for checking the constitutional validity of the act 35 of 1995.
- The first and main issue is that the state legislation has power to control on the manufacturing industries of intoxication alcohol.
- Sir Ashok Desai, learned counsel submitted by virtue of IDR act for manufacturing alcohol and product of fermentation industries, the control of manufacturing of alcohol industries are in hand of the union .
- It is for violate the article 14, which the discrimination for prohibited the manufacturing intoxicating liquors and import from outside for the exempted people which is required to met with it .
- The prohibition of manufacturing the intoxication alcohol is against the provision of article 19 (1)(g) of the Indian constitution which is for freedom for business and trade .
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The supreme court of India held out the matter of the manufacturing of the intoxicating liquors, and the constitutionality of the amendment act of 1955 by different writ petitions submitted on that matter.
The decision of the matter of synthetics and chemicals limited clearly recognizes that the state is capable to prohibit the manufacture, production, consumption and sale. It does not matter for power of issue the license. After many reasons the judgement is clarified and the state have power to take control. After reading the IDR act of entry 8 and 6 of list second cannot deal with matter of manufacture and production of alcohol liquors and finally the state legislature have perfectly power to competent to make the rules and law for prohibiting the manufacture and production through with the entire 6&8 of list second of the 7 of constitution of India with article 47.
Other decision matter related to article 19 (1)(g) right to business and trade which the Subba rao chief justice says that every trade is a trade even the intoxicating liquor are also trade but this trade is that which is inherently harmful to the people or to the society as a whole. It is prohibited but it doesn’t mean that the intoxicated liquors is not a business or trade in article 19. So the Krishna Kumar Narula’s decision is that intoxicated liquors business is restricted in the reference of the article 47 of the constitution. The state has taken an action for the welfare of the society and state.
The decision about discrimination on behalf of article 14 does not violate under this, there is not any matter for the equality or equal protection so, this enactment in this are unreasonable.
Due to the above reason the attack on the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh amendment act 35 of 1995 both on the grounds of state legislative and violation of the fundamental rights are failed. And the amendment of the Andhra Pradesh constitutionality is valid. All challenging writs petitions were dismissed. No separate arguments were given on this matter. It is the unnecessary questions were held through the writ petition which are dismissed by the court and performed the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh amendment act 35 of 1955.
In this case analysis, in the light of the doctrine of proportionality that is used for the administrative action of the authority, the proportionality is that to check the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh amendment act of 1955. In this doctrine the disproportionate actions of the authority were quashed by the court with reference to doctrine. Therefore, there was no valuable point against the act and decided the amendment of constitutional validity.
Author: Manish Kumar,
Delhi Metropolitan Education( Affiliated to GGSIPU) 2nd year (BALLB)