KRISHNAM RAJU Vs. V C I OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in the writ appeals and the petitioners in the writ petitions are wholesale and retail dealers under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and manufacturers of and dealers in Ayurvedic preparations such as Mruthasanjeevanisura ard Kharjurasava. They seek for the issuance of writs of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the sale of the Drugs and their businss in manufacture and sale of Ayurvedi: preparations. Acording to the petitioners and the appellants the excise Authorities are raiding their business premises without any justification, harassing them and interfering with their lawful business activities of sale of Drugs and Manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic preparations and therefore they should be restrained by the issuance of writs of mandamus from interfering with their lawful activities :

(2.) The respondents filed counters to the effect that the Excise Authorities have received authentic information that the petitioners herein and some other retail Drug dealers and manufacturers of Ayurvedic preparations are indulging in purchase of rectified spirits from manufacturers for a low price and selling the same as liquor after diluting it with coloured water and thereby they are contravening the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and that, therefore the Excise Authorities had to raid their business premises and seize certain quantites of such illicit liquor and send the same to the chemical examiner and put-up criminal cases against such of those who had contravened the provisions of the ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 1968. The respondents claim to have a right to raid the business premises of the petitioners when they receive authentic information about any illegal activities which amount to contravention of the provisions of the Fxcise Act or the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1945 and therefore no writ to pervent them from discharging their statutory duties can be issued by this Court. Upon the respective contentions of the parties, the question that arises for determination is, whether the Excise authorities are competent to take action against the retail dealers in drugs and manufacturers of Ayurvedic preparations known as Mruthasanjeevanisura and Khajurasava under Secs. 34, 52 and 53 of the ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 1968, 1968 and the rules made thereunder for the violation of any of the conditions of the licences issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(3.) The sum and substance of the argument of Miss. Lakshmi Devi the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dealers under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Manufacturers and dealers in Ayurvedic preparations cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of Excise Act and that for any alleged violation of the conditions of the licenses granted to them under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, they may be liable to proceeded against only under that Act, According to the counsel that Act is a self contained one, and provides for the issuance of licence, enumerates the conditions of licence and mentions the consequences of the contrevantion and violation of any of the conditions of licence; and therefore, the petitioners if they commit any irregulatities or illegalities in the conduct of their business can be effectively proceeded against under the provisions of the very same Act without resorting to the pfovisions of Excise Act. In these circumstances, it is contended that the Excise Act has no application to the facts of the present, and the petitioners are entitled for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the Excise Authorities from interfering with he lawful business activities. Mr. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for some of the petitioners pressed upon us that the licences issued to the manufactures of Ayurvedic preparations known as Mruthasanjeevanisura and Kbarjurasava fix the uppper limit of alcohol content at 65% and the process of the manufacture of these drags is under the direct control of a Government Excise Officer and therefore, they do not fall within the definition of liquor nor can they be called intoxicant drugs and that therefore, the Excise Act has no application for the goods manufectured under the Medicial and Toilet Preparations Act, He also contents that the definition of 'Liquor' is very wide and is therefore violative of Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution and should be struck down.