LAKSHMI NARAIN Vs. DISTRICT EXCISE OFFICER FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have today disposed of a batch of writ petitions arising under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Annexure A). There the petitioner had challenged S. 59 (f) (v) and R. 37 as unconstitutional. In the present batch of writ petitions the contention is identical except that the enactment and rule are formally different but in pari materia. Section 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 R. 13-B (as amended), because it prohibits liquor trade on the Ist of every month the petitioners, who are licensees, have come up to this Court challenging its vires, Rule 13-B reads thus:

(2.) The source of the rule-making power is S. 41 (e) (v) which hardly needs reproduction.

(3.) It is easy to see that the provisions in the Punjab Law, challenged unsuccessfully 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 O. 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 auction notice. With full knowledge of these restrictions, which 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 (AIR 1978 SC 1457). Without more ado, we dismiss the Writ Petitions with costs (one hearing fee).