Bihar Distillery And Anr. VS. Union Of India And Ors.

Extract

---

Bihar Distillery And Anr. VS. Union Of India And Ors.

PETITIONER: BIHAR DISTILLERY AND ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/01/1997

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY. J.

Until the commencement of the Constitution and for a few years thereafter, rectified spirit was mainly used for the purpose of manufacturing country liquor. Indian Made Foreign Liquors [I.M.F.L.] and other intoxicating drinks.

Its used for industrial purposes was not significant. The rapid pace of industrialization from mid-fifties onwards brought into existence several industries, which required rectified spirit as one of their raw materials, with the result the demand of rectified spirit for industrial purposes went up substantially and has been going up.

Evidently, in recognition of this fact, did the Union of India amend, in the year 1956, the Schedule to the Industries [Regulation and Development] Act, 1951 including the alcohol industry therein.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid amendment of the Schedule to the Industries [Regulation and Development] Act, 1951, the establishment of a distillery, its working and the distribution and sale of the rectified spirit produced by it continued to be regulated by the States as before, under various enactments in force in those States. Similar was the position in the State of Bihar where the first petitioner- distillery is located. As a matter of fact, right up to the year 1991-92, it was getting its license renewed under the provisions of the Bihar Excise Act. The original license itself was granted under the Bihar Act. I on or about the year 1992, the authorities of the Bihar State proposed to cancel the petitioner's license for certain reasons assigned by them. The petitioner objected it on the ground that the grant and cancellation of license in respect of a distillery manufacturing rectified spirit is the exclusive province of the Government of India and that the State government had no say in the matter. With this contention has it approached this Court. It relies upon the seven-Judge Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1990 (1) S.C.C. 1091. The petitioner says that it was licens...

See the full content of this document

---