D SHANTHALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1979, the State Government have introduced amendment to certain of the provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act (Act X of 1937). In these writ petitions, which form a batch the vires of the amended provisions in Ss. 14 (1, 14 (2), 14 (4) and 14 - A of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India.

(2.) For a better understanding of the case and the facts, we give below the impugned sections both before and after the amendment : As it stood before amendment.

(3.) Thiru P.Chidambaram, learned counsel who appears for the petitioners in S.P.Nos. 565, 1380, 2410, 2429, 3207,3565, 3755, 3835, 4416, 4680, 4668, 5086, 6208, 6460, 6883 and 7065 of 1980. Thiru Alagumalai, learned counsel who appears for the petitioners in some of the other writ petitions. Thiru Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in some petitions and Thiru Kalyanasundaram, learned counsel who appears for the petitioners in yet other writ petitions, have made their submissions. These arguments were adopted by Thiru Kumar Rajaratnam, Thiru Rajavadivelu, Thiru Satyendran, Thiru V.Balakrishnan, Thiru K.R.Govindarajan, Thiru N.Sivam, Thiru Kanagaraj, Thiru John Archur, Thiru N.Veeramani, Thiru Godwin, Thiru Manimaran, Thiru Suryaprakasam, Thiru C.Krishnan, Thiru Bhavanandham, Thiru Venkatachalapathi, Thiru R.N.Krishna Raju and Thiru V.Rajajagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for sets of petitioners in this batch of petitions. In view of the above position, it is enough we refer to the arguments of Thiru P.Chidambaram, Thiru Alagumalai, Thiru Subramaniam and Thiru Kalyanasundaram.