TRADE LINKS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no substance in this group of writ petitions filed under Art 32 of the Constitution whereby the petitioners, who carry on business inter alia, of the wholesale vend of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor at various places in the State of U. P. on the strength of licences granted to them in Form FL-2 under the U. P., Excise Act, 1910, have challenged the constitutional validity of Ss. 1 (2), 3 and 5 of U. P. Excise (Amendment) Ordinance No. 4 of 1979 as also the constitutional validity of Ss. 1 (2), 3 and 5 of U. P. Excise (Amendment) Act No, 13 of 1979 (which replaced the said Ordinance No. 4 of 1979) as being violative of their fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution; the petitioners have also sought a declaration that S. 30 (2), Proviso to cl. (c) of S. 41. and Explanations I and II to cl. (c) of Sec. 41 of the U. P. Excise Act 1910 as amended by Ss. 3 and 5 of the said Ordinance No. 4 of 1979 as well as by Ss. 9 and 5 of the said Act No. 13 of 1979 and the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 1 of the said Ordinance (No. 4 of 1979) as well as of the said Act (No. 13 of 1979) are ultra vires the Constitution and have prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents (the State of U. P., the Excise Commissioner and other officers) either directly or through their agents, servants or otherwise from giving effect to the amended provision.

(2.) IT may be stated that the aforesaid challenge to the U. P. Ordinance No. 4 of 1979, the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1979 and the concerned amended provisions of the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 has been made solely with a view to avoid the payment of the "assessed fee" which the respondents are seeking to recover from the petitioners in addition to the "fixed fee" (auction money) as and by way of consideration for the grant of licences in Form FL-2 for the wholesale vend of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor. However, as it became clear during the hearing that even without the amendments effected in the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 (being the Principal Act) by the said Ordinance No. 4 of 1979 and by said Act No. 13 of 1979 the "assessed fee" in addition to the "fixed fee" (auction money) could be and was being recovered under the Principal Act of 1910 as amended by the U. P. Amending (Reenactment and Validation) Act 5 of 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder, the aforesaid challenge was given up and no arguments in support thereof were at all advanced by any of the counsel for the petitioners and the contentions centred round the question whether such "assessed fee" in addition to the "fixed fee" (auction money) could be levied and recovered under the Principal Act of 1910 as amended by Act 5 of 1976.

(3.) BY the same Act S. 30 of the Principal Act was amended and the amended S. 30 read thus :