NEBHA AND CO Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners firm, Messrs. Nebha and Company carries on business at Rajkot in Gujarat. The business includes the import of toilet preparations including Eau-de-cologne from the State of Andhra Pradesh and their sale in the State of Gujarat. The petitioners challenge the legality of the restrictions imposed on the import of toilet preparations into the State.

(2.) The controversy arising in this case is concerned with statutory measures operating in the State of Gujarat for prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating liquors. The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 has been in operation in the State of Gujarat and for the consideration of the issue before us it would be appropriate to go back to State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara (1957) SCR 682. In this, one of the first decisions of this Court on the subject, the Court declared that the provisions of Ss. 12 and 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 were invalid so far as they affected the buying, possession, consumption or use or selling of liquor medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol. Pursuant to that decision, the Bombay Prohibition Act was amended and S. 24A was inserted in Chapter III of the Act exempting medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol which were unfit for use as intoxicating liquor from the scope of the prohibitions enacted in that Chapter against the manufacture, sale or purchase, import, export, transport or possession of liquor. Section 24A reads:- "24A. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to apply to -

(3.) It may be mentioned at this point that in exercise of the power conferred by S. 4 of the Spirituous Preparations (Inter-State Trade and Commerce) Control Act, 1955, the Central Government issued a notification declaring Eau-de-cologne to be a "spirituous preparation" within the meaning of that Act. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat challenging the validity of that notification, and the High Court, by its judgment dated April 24, 1970, allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification on the ground that objections had not been invited before issuing the notification. It has not been shown to us whether a fresh notification has been issued or not thereafter.