PUNJAB STATE Vs. SHAMBHU NATH AND SONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals (Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 91 and 92 of 1958) by the State of Punjab under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order made by Bishan Narain J. , whereby he disposed of Civil Writs Nos. 371 and 416 of 1957. By this order the learned Single Judge held that rule 27. 30 of the Punjab Excise Manual, Volume II, framed and notified by the Punjab government under Section 8 (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Act No. II of 1930) was ultra vires the Constitution, because it infringed the rights of citizens guaranteed by Clause (g) of Article 19 (1) of the Constitution.

(2.) IN Civil Writ No. 371 of 1957 the petitioners are Messrs. Shambhu Nath and Sons who claim to be manufacturers of acids, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. They have five different licences for the manufacture and sale of different commodities. Among these, the firth item is licences D. D. 5 and D. D. 6 granted under Rule 27. 30 entitling them to manufacture and sell certain dangerous drugs. They made an application for the renewal of these licences for the year 1956-57, but the licences were not renewed and in a list of licences published on 21-3-1956 their name did not appear. It is nowhere averred in the petition that the petitioners did, in fact, avail themselves of the rights given under these licences, and on behalf of the Department it was alleged that for a number of years preceding the non-renewal of their licences, they had not made use of these licences and had not been manufacturing the drugs to which these licences related, This allegation of the government Department was not denied by the petitioners.

(3.) IN petition No. 416 of 1957 the petitioners are Messrs. Siri Ram Ganga Ram. They, too, held licences in Forms D. D. 5 and D. D. 6. Notice was issued to them for the cancellation of these licences towards the end of the year 1955-56. This notice was however, later withdrawn, but their application for the renewal of these licences during the year 1956-57 was not granted and in the list of licences issued on 21-3-1956 their name did not appear. Their allegation is that the non-renewal of their licences was male fide and illegal. The reply of the Government Department to this petition was that the petitioners had been guilty of certain irregularities and upon the discovery of these irregularities notice for the cancellation of the previous licences was issued to them. This notice was, however, withdrawn apparently because only a short time remained before these licences would automatically expire. As the department considered that the petitioners were not suitable persons for being granted these licences, their application for a further renewal during the year 1956-57 was not granted.