K GOPAL RAO Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT ADILABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The right to vend liquor in our State is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 13 of the Act forbids the sale of liquor except under a licence. For the Abkari year 1978-79, the writ appellant obtained under the provisions of the above Act, an excise licence to vend arrack from Advelly group of arrack shops. Section 31 of the Act empowers the Excise authorities to suspend or cancel a licence under certain circumstances and conditions. The Excise Superintendent, Adilabad, purporting to exercise his powers under Section 31 of the Act, cancelled the appellants licence by his order dated 11-5-1979 holding that the appellants licence was liable to be cancelled on the ground that the appellants partner one Ganga Gowd, had committed an Excise offence at Mujigi by selling adulterated toddy at the latters licensed toddy shop. Challenging that order of cancellation, the appellant had filed a writ petition which was dismissed by our learned brother Chennakesav Reddy, J., on 27-6-79 on the ground that the appellant had been given a right of appeal by Section 63 (1) of the Act to make a complaint against the aforesaid order of the Excise Superintendent, Adilabad, and, therefore, that statutory provision read with Article 226, Clause (3) of the Constitution would operate as a jurisdictional bar for this Court to entertain any Writ Petition challenging the order of the Excise Superintendent, Adilabad. It is against this order of the learned Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) The one and the only question which this writ appeal raises for our consideration is whether in view of Article 226, Clause (3) of the Constitution as it existed at the relevant time, the existence of Section 63 (1) of the Act operates as a bar to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appellants writ petition filed against the order of the cancellation passed by the Excise Superintendent, Adilabad.

(3.) The original Constitution worded Article 226 in the widest language possible. That provision of the Constitution conferred, for the first time on all the High Courts, power and jurisdiction to issue writs, orders and directions for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and also for any other purpose. For what other purposes, under what circumstances, and at whose instance these powers are to be exercised are all left open and unspecified by the language of the original Constitution. The original Article 26 of the Constitution was intended to bear the major part of the burden of policing the rule of law. Ubi jus Ibi Remedium, is its battle cry. It is no wonder what the people of our country who have so much realized through their suffering in the recent times the truth of this ancient saying not merely extolled Article 226 and welcomed it more than any other part of the Constitution but some of them had even called it as Conscience of the Constitution. It may be, because of this reason that despite several amendments the Constitution had undergone, Article 226 was left almost untouched. The First Amendment to Article 226 in the year 1963 is not a diminution of its authority but is only an accession of further strength, for it widened the territorial jurisdiction of Art. 226. It was under the Constitution 43rd Amendment, Article 226 suffered a major depletion of its majesty and authority which we may mention had been restored to it by the 44th Amendment of the Constitution with which we are not concerned in this writ appeal. In the form of Art. 226, Cl. (3) introduced by the 42nd Amendment, the High Courts had altogether been denied jurisdiction to issue writs in all cases excepting those for the enforcement of fundamental rights where there is any other remedy provided for the redressal of the grievance by or under any other law. Prior to the 42nd Amendment, the existence of a statutory remedy intended to redress a grievance did not operate as a Constitutional bar for the High Courts to issue writs to set right the wrong done. But under the 42nd Amendment, the existence of such a remedy was made to operate to oust the writ jurisdiction of the Courts.