Supreme Court of India
OMA RAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 504
- Decided
- 21 April 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The amendments are regulatory in nature, lie within the State’s legislative competence and do not violate Article 301 or any other constitutional provision.
Summary
The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 54A, 69(4)‑(9) and 98 inserted by amendment to the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, alleging that they usurped the jurisdiction of criminal courts, removed the remedy of judicial review and violated Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, 301 and 254 of the Constitution. The State contended that the amendment fell within its legislative competence under List II (Item 8, 64, 65) and was a regulatory measure to curb unauthorised transport of excisable goods. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the provisions, the scheme of the Act, and comparable provisions in other states, and held that the amendments are merely regulatory, do not infringe the freedom of trade guaranteed by Article 301, and are within the State’s legislative power. Relying on PN Krishna Lal’s case and several other precedents, the Court dismissed the appeals. The writ petitions were consequently dismissed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- The amendment provisions (Sections 54A, 69(4)‑(9) and 98) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, are ultra vires of the Constitution, particularly Articles 254 and 301.
- Whether the amendment infringes the jurisdiction of criminal courts under Cr.P.C. §§ 451‑457.
- Whether Section 98, which bars civil courts from entertaining suits, violates the constitutional guarantee of judicial review.
- Whether the amendment violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21.
- Whether the amendment requires the President’s assent under Article 254.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedures. 4, s. 5, s. 9
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 451-457
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19, s. Article 20, s. Article 21, s. Article 246, s. Article 254, s. Article 301
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955s. 68, s. 6A, s. 6E
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 41
Subjects
Excise lawConfiscationRegulatory powerArticle 301Article 254State legislative competenceJudicial reviewFreedom of tradeRajasthan Excise Act
Judgment
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 747
OMA RAM A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.905 of 2002)
APRIL 21, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950:
ss. 98, 54 (A) and 69 (4)(9)- Provisions conferring powers
on Excise· Commissioner etc. regarding possession, delivery, c
disposal and release of a vehicle involved in transport of
contraband items - Held - Amendments introduced are
regulatory in nature and cannot be regarded as violative of
freedom guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 301. D
The instant appeals were filed against the judgment
of the Rajasthan High Court whereby it dismissed writ
petitions of appellants challenging vi res of ss.54(ka), 69(4)
to (9) and 9-B of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 as inserted
by way of amendment to the Act. E
It was contended for the appellants that by s.54(A)
and 69(4) to (9) of the Act the powers otherwise exercisable
by Criminal Courts u/ss. 451 to 457 of the Code of Criminal
t. Procedure, 1973 with regard to possession, delivery, F
disposal or release of a conveyance, were conferred on
the Excise Commissioner or any officer authorised in this
behalf by the State Government; that by s.98 the remedy
of judicial review was taken away; and that the provisions
inserted by the amendment were contrary to Article 254
G
of the Constitution of India. For the respondent-State
Government it was contended that the amendment to the
Act was within the legislative con:~etence of the State
Legislature under Item 8 read with Items 64 and 65 of List
747 H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.
A II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution, and the Act was
a special Act dealing with the right of State Government
to regulate production, transfer, storage, possession and
sale of liquor or intoxicating drugs.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
B
HELD: The amendments introduced are regulatory
in nature and cannot be regarded as violative of freedom
guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution. There
are similar provisions in ss.4 and 14A of the Tamil Nadu
c Excise Act, 1971, ss.43A and 438 in the Karnataka Excise
Act, 1965, s.75 in the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 and
ss.46 and 46A the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. In
view of the decision of this Court in P.N. Krishnalal's case*
and other cases, the appeals are without merit. [Paras 15,
D 16 and 1B] [761-C-G]
*PN. Krishna Lal & Ors. vs. Govt. of Kera/a & Anr.
1995(suppl.) 2 sec 187; State of Karnataka V. K.Krishnan
(2000) 7 SCC 80; Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v State of West
Bengal & Anr.(1990) 3 SCC 549; Deputy Commissioner,
E Dakshina Kannada District v. Rudolph Fernandes (2000) 3
SCC 306 and State of WB. & Ors. V Sujit Kumar Rana (2004)
4 sec 129 - relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION • Civil Appeal No.
905 of 2002.
F
:=rom the final Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2001 of • •
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur i:i D. B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 2332 of 2001
WITH
G
Civil ,L\ppeal Nos. 291 of 2004, 3575. 4562 ar.d 906 of
2002.
Aishwarya Bhati. Rekha Giri and Gp. Capt. Karan Singh
Bhati for the Appellant.
H
OMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 749
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]
'°'I
Aruneshwar Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh and Sandhya A
Goswami for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In all these appeals challenge
is to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur B
dismissing the writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
Challenge in the writ petitions was to the vires of certain provision
of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (in short the 'Act'). Essentially
the prayers were as follows:
c
"(a) appropriate writ, order or direction, incorporation of
Sec. 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of
the Excise Act may be declared ultra-vi res and be struck
down;
(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, amendment D
--~ in the Excise Act, 1950 by incorporation of Section 98
may be declared ultra-vires and be struck down;
(c) by a further appropriate, writ, order or direction
impugned order dated 16.5.2000, passed by respondent E
No. 2 may be declared invalid and may be quashed and
set aside;
(d) Pending decision, if any further order is made or action
is taken prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the
.. , same may also be quashed and set aside."
2. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in the
F
writ petitions challenging the vires of the provisions were founded
· on the following allegations:
1. The provisions of the amendment are contrary to G
Article 254 of the Constitution and without the assent
of the President those are ultra vires;
~
2. the amended provisions are repugnant to the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
the Code cf Civil Procedure; H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 6 S.C.R.
A 3. The amended provisions confer unguided powers
on the Excise Authorities;
4. By Section 9(B) the remedy of judicial review is taken
away and the petitioner is remediless."
B 3. The respondent-State prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition on the ground that the Act was within the legislative
competence of the State Government under Item 8 read with
Items 64 & 65 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution
and is a special Act dealing with right of the State to regulate
C production, transfer, storage, possession and sale of liquor or
intoxicating drugs.
4. The High Court noted that 75 similar petitions were filed
before the Jaipur Bench raising similar contentions.
5. Following the view of the Jaipur Bench the Writ Petitions
0 were dismissed by the impugned judgment.
6. In support of the appeals, it was submitted that as per
the provisions of Sections 451 to 457 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C'), the criminal court has
E jurisdiction to release any property seized or recovered during
any enquiry or trial. By the insertion of Section 54(A) of the
Rajasthan Excise Amendment Ordinance, 2000 which was later
on substituted by the Amendment Act Along with Section 54A,
Section 69 has also been amended and as per amended sub
F section (6) of Section 69 it has been provided that whenever
-
any means of conveyance is seized in connection with
commission of offence under the Act, the Excise Commissioner
or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government
shall have and notwithstanding anything contained in any lav·
for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other Authorit~
G shall not have jurisdiction to make order with regard to the
possession, delivery, disposal or release of such conveyance.
Grievance was that in view of the aforesaid provisions the
criminal courts were not invoking jurisdiction and the power Jf
the court has been taken away. Challenge to Section 54A ar,
H Section 69(6) were made on the ground that they are
OMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 751
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"I
unconstitutional, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles A
14, 19, 20, 21 and 301 of the Constitution. It was submitted that
the powers conferred on judicial courts by virtue of Sections
451 to457 Cr.P.C. has been CL!rtailed or have been taken away
and indirectly the power of revision of Sessions judge or the
High Court and inherent power of the High Court under Section B
482 Cr.P.C. has been curtailed.
7. In response, learned counsel for the State made the
reference to Sections 4,5, & 9 Cr.P.C. and Section 41 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').
c
8. The objects and reasons of the Rajasthan Excise
AmendmentAct, 2000 need to be noted. The same is as follows:
"Statement of Objects and Reasons:
The incidence of unauthorised transportation of excisable
D
articles had increased in recent past and it was noticed
that owners of such vehicles were indulging in these
activities with impunity. It was also noticed that the vehicles
indulging in such transportation even after seizure for
commission of the offence were released from courts and
E
were again used for unauthorised transportation of
exciseable articles. To check this menace, it was
considered necessary to provide that if any means of -
conveyance is used in commission of offence under the
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, then the same shall be liable
to be confiscated by order of the Excise Commissioner or F
"; the Officer, not below the rank of District Excise Officer as
may b.e authorized by the State Government in this behalf
_and the owner of such a means of conveyance shall be,
deemed to be guilty of offence for the commission of which,
the said means of conveyance was used. For achieving G
these purposes, Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act
was proposed to be suitably amended and a new Section
~ 54A was proposed to be inserted."
The amended Section 54 reads as follows:
H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
+'
A "54. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport,
manufacture, possession etc.- , Whoever in contravention
of this Act or of any rule or order made or of any licence,
permit or pass granted, thereunder
(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects,
B sells or possesses any excisable article, or, ·+
(b) cultivates any hemp plant (Cannabis Saliva); or
(c) constructs or works any distillery, pot still or brewery;
or
c
(d) uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials
stills, utensil, implements or apparatus whatsoeve· for ihe
purpose of manufacturing any excisable article other than
tari; or removes any excisable articles for any distillery
potstill,(brewery) or warehouse established or licensed
D
under this Act or
(e) bottles any liquor for the purposes of sale; or
(f) taps or draws tari from any tari producing tree;
E shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and with fine which may extend
to two thousand rupees.
Sections 54A and 69 read as follows:
F "54-A. Owner of animal, cart, vessel, raft. motor vehicle or
any other means of conveyance deemed to be guilty in ), ~
certain cases. Where any animal, cart, vessel, raft, motor,
vehicle or any other means of conveyance is used in the
commission of an offence under this Act, and is liable to
G confiscation, the owner thereof, except, in case of a motor
vehicle -or other, means of conveyance being owned by
the Central· Government or any State Government or any
of the undertakings, shall be deemed to be guilty of such
offence and such owner shall be liable to be proceeded
and be- punished accordingly unless he satisfies the court
H
OMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 753
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.....
that he had no reason to believe that such offence was A
being or likely to be committed and he had exercised due
care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence.
69. What things are liable to confiscation- (1) Whenever
an offence punishable under this Act has been committed
8
(a) every excisable article in respect of which such offence
has been committed.
(b) every still, utensil, implement or apparatus and all
materials by means of which such offence has been
committed. c
(c) every excisable article lawfully imported transported,
manufactured held in possession or sold alongwith or in
addition to any excisable article liable to confiscation under
clause (a),
D
... ~ (d), every receptacle, package or covering in which any
article as aforesaid or any materials, still, utensil, implement
or apparatus is or are found together with the other
contents -(if any) of such receptacle or package, and
(e) every animal, cart, vessel, raft or other conveyance E
used in carrying such receptacle or package, shall be
liable to confiscation.
(2) When in the trial of any offence punishable under this
Act the Magistrate decides that anything is liable to
F
~ { confiscation under clause (a) to (d) of sub-sec (1) he may
order confiscation.
Provided that (in case of a thing other than an excisable
article he may, in lieu of ordering confiscation, give) the
owner of the thing liable to be confiscated an option to pay G
any such fine as the Magistrate thinks fit.
~ (3) When anything mentioned in sub-section (1) is found
in circumstances which afford reason to believe that an
offence under this Act has been committed in respect or
. by, means thereof, or when such an offence has been, H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
...
A committed and the offender is not known or cannot be
found, the Excise Commissioner may order confiscation
of the same:
Provided that no such order shall be made until the
expiration of one month from the date of seizing the thing
8 or animal in question or without hearing the person (if any)
claiming any right thereto, and the evidence (if any) which
he produces in support of the claim:
Provided further that if the thing in question is liable to
c speedy and natural decay, if the Excise Commissioner is
of opinion that the sale of the thing or animal in question
would be for the benefit of its owner, he may at any time
direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this section shall
so far as may be, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.
D (4) Where any means of conveyance referred to in clause
(e) of sub-section (1) is seized in connection with the
commission of any offence under this Act, a report of such
seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made by the
person seizing to the Excise Commissioner or to the
E officer, not below the rank of the District Excise Officer, as
may be duly authorized by the State Government in this
behalf and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for
commission of such an offence, the Excise Commissioner
or the officer authorized in this behalf by the State
F Government, having jurisdiction over the area where the
said means of conveyance was seized, may, if satisfied }. "
that the said means of conveyance was used for
commission of offence under this Act, order confiscation
of the said means of conveyance.
G Provided that before ordering confiscation of the said
means of conveyance a reasonable opportunity of being.
heard shall be afforded to the owner of the said means of
conveyance and if such owner satisfies the Excise
Commissioner or the officer authorised by the State
H Government in this behalf that he had no reason to believe
OMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 755
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
that such offeni:;e was being or likely to be committed and A
_he had exercised due care in the prevention of the
commission of such an offence, the Excise Commissioner
or the officer authorised by the State Government in this
behalf, may nof confiscate the_ said means of conveyance.
Provid_ed further that where such means of conveyance is 8
owned by the Central Government or any State Government
or any of their undertaking, no order of confiscation of
such means of conveyance shall be pass~d by the _Excise
Commissioner or the officer authorised by the State
Government in this behalf and the matter shall be referred C
. to the State Government by the Exc:ise Commissioner or
the officer authorised by the State' Gover.nment -in this
behalf, for making such orders regarding means of
conveyance as the State Government' may deem fit.
D
·pmvided also that before ordering confiscation under this,
sub-section the owner of the means of conveyance,
referred to in clause (e) of sub~sec. (1 ), may be given an
option to pay in lieu of confiscation, a fine not exceeding
the market price of such means of conveyance.
E
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation
made under sub-sec. (4) may within sixty days from the
date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the
Divisional Commissioner and the Divisional
. Commissioner after giving opportunity to the appellant to F
.... ·i
be heard, shall pass such order as it may think fit,
confirming, modjfying or annulling the order appealed
against.
(6) Whenever any means of conveyance as referred to in
dause (e) of sub-~ection (1) is seized in connection with G
commission of an offence under this Act, the Excise
Commissioner or any officer authorised in this behalf by
the 'state Government shall have, and, notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the time being in force
qny court, tribunal
,\_. , .
or other authority shall not have jurisdiction H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, ..-
disposal, release of such means of conveyance.
(7) Where the Excise Commissioner or the officer
authorised by the State government in this behalf is of the
opinion that it is expedient in public interest or for the
8 benefit of its owner that the means of conveyance as
referred to in clause (e) of sub-sec. (1 }, seized for
commission of offence under this Act be sold by public
auction, h~ may at anytime direct it to be sold.
c (8) Where any means of conveyance is sold, as aforesaid,
the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses
of such sale or auction or other incidental expenses
relating thereto and in other cases, the means of
conveyance which was seized or the amount of fine paid
in lieu of its confiscation, shall-
D
(a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed
+-- '
by the Excise Commissioner or the officer authorized
by the State Government in this behalf or,
(b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-sec.
E
(5) so requires; or
(c) where in a prosecution instituted for commission of
offence under this Act in respect of which an order of
confiscation has been made under this section, the
F person concerned is acquitted,
be paid, returned or refunded, as the case may be, to its ;. ..
owner:
Provided that no interest shall be payable on the amount
to be paid or refunded under this sub-section.
G
any order of confiscation made by the Excise
Commissioner or any officer authorised by the State
Government in this behalf, shall not prevent the infliction of
any 'punishment to which the person affected thereby is
H liable under this Act"
OMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 757
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~
Section 98 of the Act which was introduced in the Gazette A
Notification dated 31.7.1998 reads as follows:
"Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts;
No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit
or proceeding to set aside or modify; B
(a) any original order passed by any of the officer
competent to do so under the provisions of this Act;
(b) any order passed under or referred to in Section
9A." c
Article 254 of the Constitution reads as follows:
"(1) If any provision of a law made by the legislature of a
State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by
Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact,
D
or to any,; provision of an existing law with respect to
~-~
one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent
List, then, subject to the Provisions of clause (2),the
law made by Parliament, whether passed before or
after the law made by the Legislature of such State,
E
or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail
and the law made by the Legislature of the State·
shall, to the extent of the repugnancy be void.
(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with
respect to one of the matters enumerated in the F
Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to
~ "' the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament,
or an existing law with respect to that matter, then,
the law so made by the Legislature of such State
shall, if it has been, .reserved for the consideration G
of the President and has received his assent, prevail
in that State
~
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent
Parliament from enacting at any time any law with
respect to the same matter including a law adding H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made
by the Legislature of the State."
9. So far as Amendment Act, 2000 is concerned it
received assent of the Governor on 3.4.2000 by which Section
54A was inserted and amendments were made in Section 69
B of the existing provisions and sub-sections 4 to 9 were inserted ~-
and earlier amendments were made in Section 9-8 which has
been quoted above.
10. In PN. Krishna Lal & Ors. v. Govt. of Kera/a & Anr
C (1995 (suppl.) 2 sec 187) it was observed at para 12 as follows:
"12. The scheme of the Act and the Amendment Act is a
consistent whole, regulating production, manufacture,
possession, transport, purchase or sale of intoxicating
liquors. The Amendment Act was enacted to prohibit mixing
D or permitting to mix methanol in arrack or intoxicating drug
or failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent acts
or omissions, of mixing methanol in arrack or intoxicating
drug or to be in possession thereof with knowledge of its
adulteration or to prevent deleterious effect on the health
of the consumers to prevent grievous hurt to human beings
E
or their death. As a part of it, the burden of proof of the
ingredients of the offence being within the special
knowledge of the accused has also been laid on the
accused person. Therefore, though incidentally it trenches
into some of the provisions of the Evidence Act, the Indian
F Penal Code and the Code, in its pith and substance, it is
an integral scheme of the Act, which falls within Entry 8
read with Entries 64 and 65 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution. Under Article 246(3), the
State legislature was competent to enact the Amendment
G Act. Therefore, the assent of the President is not necessary.
Even assuming that some of the provisions incidentally
trespass into the field of operation of the Central provisions
falling in the Concurrent List, which empower both
Parliament and the State legislatures to enact the law, the
H assent given by the President made Sections 57-A and
OMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 759
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
·~
57-B valid. The Gazette Notification of the Amendment A
Act has been placed before us which shows that the
President has given his assent to the Amendment Act on
1-12-1984. Therefore, by operation· of proviso to clause
(2) of Article 254, the Amendment Act prevails over the
relevant provisions in the Indian Evidence Act, IPC and B
---... the Code in relation to the State of Kerala."
11. This is a complete answer to most of the submissions
made by the appellants.
12. In State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan (2000(7) SCC
80) this court while considering a case of forest offence under
c
the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, observed that the provisions
of the Act should be strictly complied with and generally the
seized forest produce and the vehicle, boat, tools etc. used in
commission of forest offence should not be released and even
if the Court is allowed to release the same, the authorized officer D
°".:t- must specify reasons therefor and must insist on furnishing of
bank guarantee as the minimum condition. In that case the forest
produce was transported in violation of the provisions of the
Act. The High Court had modified the conditions regarding bank
guarantee stipulated by the authorized officer and instead had [
directed to furnish two like sureties to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/
- each for the purpose of getting interim custody of the vehicle.
This Court held that the High Court had adopted a casual
approach and its order was contrary to law.
13. Certain provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, F
., J
1955 have relevance. Section 6A deals with confiscation of food
grains, edible oil seeds and edible oils. Section 68 deals with
issue of show cause notice before confiscation of food grains
etc. Section 6E deals with bar of jurisdiction in certain cases.
Section 6E has been substituted to provide that except Collector G
or State Government, all other authorities, judicial or otherwise,
would be debarred from making any order with regard to the
...>-
possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of any essential
commodity, seized in pursuance of an order made under Section
3. Th1.;s a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant relief against H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
i-'
A seizure under Section 457 Cr.P.C. Section 6A provides for
confiscation of essential commodities seized in pursuance of
an order made under Section 3. Collector of the district of the
Presidency Town, in which such commodity is seized, may order
confiscation, if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention
B of such an order. But, no order of confiscation shall be made
under this Section, if the seized essential commodity has been
produced by the producer, without prejudice to any action, which
may be taken under any other provision of this Act. Section 68
of the Act provides the procedure to be adopted by the Collector,
c before passing order for confiscation, which provides that after
issuing of notice, an opportunity has to be given to the aggrieved
party, for contesting the same. The Collector, after giving him a
hearing, has to decide the objection and pass an order either
confiscating the property or refusing to confiscate the property.
D 14. In case Shambhu Dayal Agarwala v. State of West
Bengal & Anr. (1990 (3) SCC 549) this Court held that whenever
any essential commodity is seized, pending confiscation under
•
Section 6A, the Collector has no power to order release of the
commodity in favour of the owner. Having regard to the scheme
E of the Act, the object and purpose of the statute and the mischief
it seeks to guard, this Court held that the word "release" in Section
6E is used in the limited sense of release for sale etc., so that
the same becomes available to the consumer public. It was
further held:
F "No unqualified and unrestricted power has been conferred
on the Collector of releasing the commodity in the sense "~
of returning it to the owner or person from whom it was
seized even before the proceeding for confiscation stood
completed and before the termination of the prosecution
G in acquittal of the offender. Such a view would render
clause (b) of Section 7(1) totally nugatory and would
completely defeat the purpose and object of the Act. The
view that the Act itself contemplates a situation which would
render Section 7(1 )(b) otiose where the essential
H, commodity is disposed of by the Coilector under Section
OMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 761
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-~ 6A(2) is misconceived. Section 6A does not empower the A
Collector to give an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation of
essential commodity a fine not exceeding the market value
of the commodity on the date of seizure, as in the case of
any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance seized
along with the essential commodity. Only a limited power of B
sale of the commodity in the manner prescribed by Section
6A the essential commodity has to be exercised in public
interest for maintaining the supplies and for securing the
equitable distribution of the essential commodity."
15, The amendments introduced, in our view, are regulatory C
in nature and cannot be regarded as violative of freedom
guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution. In Ji/ubhai
Nanbhjai Khachar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (1995
Supp (1) SCC 596), after examining the principle of "Eminent
Domain" it was held by this Court that Article 300-A is not o
attracted and deprivation is in exercise of police power and
"-> said article enjoins that such deprivation should not be without
sanction of law.
16. There are similar provisions in the Excise Acts of other
States, for example the Tamil Nadu Excise Act, 1971, Karnataka E
Excise Act, 1965, Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 and the
An,dhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The provisions are in
Sections 4 and 14A of the Tamil Nadu Act, Sections 43A and
438 of the Karnataka Act, Section 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Act
and Sections 46 and 46A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act: F
17. · Reference may also be made to Deputy
Commissioner, Dakshiria Kannada District v. Rudolph
Fernandes [2000(3) SCC 306]arid State of WB. & Ors. v. Sujit
Kumar RC)na [2004 (4) SCC 129] while gauzing the validity of
the impugned provis'ions. G
18. In view of what has been stated above the inevitable
conclusion is that the appeals are without merit, deserve
dismissal; which we direct. No costs.
R.P. Appeals dismissed f-1
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Excise law"Sign in to search