ANANT RAM Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions raise art identical question and, as such, are being decided together. The Petitioners of these writ petitions have been engaged in the business of Tari and are either Harijansor Jaiswal by caste. The Excise Commissioner purporting to act under Section 41 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) framed Uttar Pradesh (Licensing under the Surcharge Fee System) Rules 1968 and also made amendments in those Rules from time to time with the previous sanction of the State Government. Those Rules inter alia regulate Tari business.

(2.) BY a notification dated October 27, 1984, the Excise Commissioner published the Uttar Pradesh (Licensing under the Surchurae Fee System)(Third Amendment) Rules 1984 hereinafter referred to as the Third Amendment Rules whereby certain amendments were made in the original rules mentioned above. One of the amendments made was by adding a proviso after Clause 3(f) to the following effect:

(3.) CERTAIN private parties have got themselves impleaded in the writ petition and the contention of their counsel is that the Petitioners are not entitled to get licence for carrying on Tari business. Since this is a question to be considered by the authority concerned, we do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on this point.