A. Lakshmi Narain and Others v. District Excise Officer, Fatehpur & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. R. Krishna Iyer
D. A. Desai
O. Chinnappa Reddy
Judgment Date: 1978-08-16
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions dismissed with costs (one hearing fee).
Final Disposition: Petitions dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. Lakshmi Narain and Others

Respondents

District Excise Officer, Fatehpur
Ors.

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions challenge Rule 13B of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Rules, which prohibits sale of liquor on all Tuesdays and on the first day of every month, as well as on Independence Day, Gandhi Jayanti, and Mahatma Gandhi's death anniversary, with exceptions for waivers in specified periods. The Rule is grounded in Section 41(e)(v) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, empowering the Excise Commissioner to fix opening hours. The petitioners, licensees who acquired liquor licenses by public auction, contend the restrictions are unconstitutional. The Court frames the argument as mirroring the Punjab regime under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956, particularly Rule 37. In a line of Punjab decisions, this Court previously held similar rules valid. The UP authorities faced the same questions, and given that the auction notices carried these conditions, the licensees stood to accept the licences with knowledge of the restrictions. The Court finds the UP provisions in pari materia with the Punjab rules and upholds them; it cites P.N. Kaushal v. Union of India (1979) 1 SCR 121 as controlling. The petitions are dismissed with costs; the decision treats the law as a reasonable, non-arbitrary regulation within the auction regime.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 41(e)(v) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise ActRule 13B of the Uttar Pradesh Excise RulesPunjab Excise Act, 1914, Sec. 59(f)(v)Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956, Rule 37

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

in pari materia

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants contend Rule 13B, read with Sec. 41(e)(v) UP Excise Act, infringes constitutional rights by restricting trade without a clear, reasonable nexus to public welfare. They argue the auction process did not bind licensees to such restrictions and that the rule imposes blanket prohibitions on sale on multiple regular days, undermining business certainty. They question the applicability of Punjab jurisprudence to UP given differing contexts, and emphasize the need for proportionate regulation rather than blanket bans.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents defend Rule 13B as a valid exercise of rule-making power under Sec. 41(e)(v) UP Excise Act. They assert the restrictions are in pari materia with Punjab rules and are justified within an auction-based licensing framework disclosed to bidders. They rely on the Punjab decisions and on P. N. Kaushal v. Union of India to argue that such restrictions are reasonable, non-arbitrary instruments of liquor control, and that petitioners knowingly entered into licenses with these conditions and cannot now challenge them.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
P. N. Kaushal v. Union of India	I SCR 121	Positive	The Court applies and follows the Kaushal decision, treating it as controlling authority for upholding similar restrictions within the UP auction-based licensing framework.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

### • ## • 161 A LAKSHMI NARAIN AND OTHERS _v._ DISTRICT EXCISE OFFICER, FATEHPUR & ORS . _August_ 16, 1978 (V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPl'A REDDY, JJ.] B _U.11._ _Excise_ _Act-Section_ 4l(e)(v) _&_ _(J.P._ _Excise_ _Rules-Rule_ _138-Valid_ _and_ _riot_ _u11coustitutio11al._ _Co11sit11tio11_ _of_ _India_ _1950-Article_ _32-Petition under-Petitioners_ _partici-_ pati1u~ _in an auction with full knowledge_ _of conditions_ _if_ _could object to condition._ Section 41(e) (v) of the U.P. Excise Act cn1powered the Excise Commissioner to make rules fixing the days and hours during which licensed premises n1ay be kept open or closed. The petitioners who were licensees in sale of liquor challenged the validity of the rule. Dismissing the writ petitions, HELD~ 1. As the provisions of Rule 13B of the U.P. Excise Rules arc _in_ _parl materia_ with Rule 37 of the Punjab Liquor Licence•Rules 1'56, the decision in _P._ _N._ _Kaushal_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India tic._ [1979] I S.C.R. 121 is applicable. [161 GJ 2. The licences were awarded at public auction and tho conditions regarding closure of business on certain days were prirtted in the auction notice. Wilh full knowledge of these restrictions which the petitioners considered reasonable when they participaited in the bids, they took the licences. They cannot assail the :-;arnc in the writ petitions. [162F·GI fFor appearance refer to pages 125-126). #### c D E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F KRISHNA IYER, J. We have today disposed of a batch of writ petitions arising under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Annexure A). There !he petitioner had challenged Sec. 59(f)(v) and rule 37 as unconstitutional. In the present batch of writ petitions the contention is identical except that the enactment and rule are formally diffe- G rent but _in_ _pari_ _materia._ Sec. 41 (e) (v) of the U.P. Excise Act empowers the Excise Commissioner to make rules fixing the days and hours during which licensed premises may be kept opened or closed. Rule 13 B is one such rule which forbids sale of liquor "on all Tuesdays as well as the first day of every month". Aggrieved by rule 13 B (as amended), because it prohibits liquor trade on the 1st of every H month the petitioners, who are licensees, have come up to this Court challenging its vires. Rule 13 B reads thus : A B ##### c D E F G # • 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1979) 1 s.c.R. "l 3B. AU excise shops (including foreign liquor country spirit, home drugs, opium( tari and outstill shops) shall not be kept open on Independence day (August 15) Mahatma Gandhi Birthday (October 2) and on the day of Mahatma Gandhi's tragic death (January 30) every year and also on all Tuesdays as well as on the first day of every month. Provided that if the first day of the month happen to be a public holiday, the day next following of that month shall be the day on which the excise shops shall not be kept open. Provided further Excise Commissioner, may in consultation with the CoUector of the District concerned, waive the condition of not keeping an exercise shop open on Tuesday or the first day of the month or the day next foUowing of that month, as the case may be, for such specified period as he may think fit, in the case of hotels possessing a licence in Form F.L. 6 for the sale of foreign liquor for the brnefit of such foreign tourists as may hold a valid permit under the All India liquor permit scheme of the Government of India." The source of the rule-making power is Sec. 41 ( e )( v) which hardly needs reproduction. It is easy to see that the provisions in the Punjab Law, challenged nnsuccessfully before us, and these U.P. provisions are virtually the same. The contentions put forward by counsel for the petitioners and the submissions by the Solicitor General and Shri 0. P. Rana in reply are also identical with what we have heard and considered in the Punjab cases. Indeed, the U.P. cases, from the point of view of the State, are stronger because the licences were awarded at public auctions and all the conditions now objected to in these writ petitions regarding closure of business on certain days are printed in the the auction notice. With full knowledge of these restrictions, which they considered reasonable when they participated in the bids (and which we consider reasonable for reasons we have given in the Punjab cases), they took the licences. So their present challenge must meet with its Waterloo in the decision of this Court in the Punjab Cases. Without more ado, we dismiss the Writ Petitions with costs (one hearing fee). N.V.K. _Petitions dismissed._