SUNNY MARKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the appellant. He challenges Ext. P2 order issued by the Government of Kerala. By Ext. P2 order, Government ordered that all arrack shops in the State will stand abolished from 1.4.1996. Presumably Ext. P2 order is issued in consonance with Art.47 of the Constitution of India. Appellant's attack of Ext. P2 is three fold. By abolition of all arrack shops from 1.4.1996, appellant's fundamental right under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution is violated as he is working as Route Manager for distribution of arrack for the past five years and he is earning his livelihood by working as Route Manager. The second attack is on the ground that while arrack shops are to be abolished, toddy shops and shops selling Indian made foreign liquor are to continue and hence it is discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The third attack is that the fermentation industry is regulated by the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and that Ext. P2 entrenches upon the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act by abolishing the arrack shops. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are not satisfied that the appellant is well founded on any of the grounds urged.

(2.) Art.47 of the Constitution of India enjoins on the State to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The Article enjoins upon and in turn enables the State to take measures to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. To meet this end, State is required to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health. Prohibition may be complete or partial and it also includes regulation. It cannot be disputed that arrack is one such thing. Hidayatulla, J.(as he then was) in Sheoshankar v. M. P. State Government. ( AIR 1951 Nag. 58 ) held that" a vast proportion of the population of this country does not believe that drinking is an evil & that a policy of prohibition should be adopted. Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial. To prove that such views are held, it is enough to cite the solemn declaration of the people in Art.47 of the Constitution itself.

(3.) The question that is mooted is whether the State in enforcement of its duty to improve public health, prohibit consumption of certain drinks. Can that policy be struck down as violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. This right conferred for the said profession is circumscribed by the provision in Clause (6). Art.19(1)(g) read with Art.19(6) of the Constitution spells out a fundamental right given to the citizen to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business so long as it is not prevented or is within the frame work of the regulation, if any. There can be no dispute that certain professions, occupations, trade or business which are not in the interest of the general public may be completely prohibited while others may be permitted with reasonable restrictions.