LAWS(ORI)-2012-3-72

UMA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On March 12, 2012
UMA ENTERPRISES Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition questions the competency of the State Legislature to incorporate 'Molasses' in the definition of Section 2(12-a) by way of substitution of Act No.36 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and imposition of license fee and utilization fee as per paragraph-9(a) to (d) and paragraph-27 and some of the guidelines of the year 2010 issued by the Government vide letter dated 25.2.2012 addressed to the Excise Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack and prayed for striking out said provision from the definition of 'intoxicant' as the same is unconstitutional and lack of competence on the part of the State Legislature urging various facts and legal grounds.

(2.) The main ground of attack is that the molasses is a rectified sprit which does not fall within Entry 8 read with Entries 6 and 51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The incorporation of the said fresh molasses to the definition of 'intoxicant' without framing rules or regulation to regulate the use of molasses and levy of license fee are bad in law. The last contention urged is that incorporation of the said fresh molasses to the definition of 'intoxicant' affects the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. Therefore, Mr Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court for striking out or withdrawal of the same from the definition of 'intoxicant' as it is unconstitutional.

(3.) The said prayer has been opposed by the learned Government Advocate Mr R.K. Mohapatra justifying the incorporation of the molasses raw material to the 'intoxicant' definition. Further, it is stated in the counter statement that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same as he does not have the license for the year 2010-11, as he did not submit an application for the purpose after end of the financial year 2009-10, for renewal of the license he had. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the policy of the Government and the legislation made by the competent State Legislature.