ANIL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. There are five petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3873 of 2006 and a single one in C.W.J.C. No. 11316 of 2006. They are all aggrieved by and seek to challenge a public notice Page 0051 dated 11.03.2006 and its supplement dated 8/13.09.2006 issued by the District Magistrate, Gaya, in an effort to regulate the sale of Mahua flowers.

(2.) ALL the six petitioners are wholesale dealers of Mahua flowers. ALL the six petitioners are registered as dealers under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, and they also hold licences/permits under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960. The petitioners maintain that their buyers used Mahua flowers as animal fodder and in extreme conditions even for human consumption. They would wish to make it appear as if there is no connection between Mahua flowers and any intoxicant.

(3.) THE notice was promptly challenged before the Court, inter alia on the ground of undue interference with the petitioner's right to free trade. When the cases were taken up earlier, the Court noticed the apparent vagueness in the impugned notice and recorded its observations in the order dated 31.08.2006 as follows: THE impugned public notice requires dealers at (Sic. of) Mahua to keep and maintain the identity and full address of their purchasers. It is further stated in the notice that on demand by the Excise authorities, they would be obliged to provide all kinds of information for necessary enquiry against the seller/ buyers of Mahua. THE direction is quite vague inasmuch as it is not clear as to how the seller is to record the identity of the purchasers and what information he would be obliged to furnish to the Excise authorities.