Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves a batch of writ petitions filed by various liquor licensees and applicants challenging the validity of Rule 3(11-C) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968. The petitioners, including Raju, Manjunath, and others, sought to strike down the rule on the ground that it was ultra vires the parent Act, specifically Section 71(2)(e) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, and violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The rule mandated that no liquor shop shall be located within a distance of 100 meters from the boundary of any national or state highway. The petitioners argued that the rule was arbitrary, caused hardship to existing licensees, and exceeded the rule-making power delegated under the Act. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka and excise authorities, defended the rule as a valid exercise of delegated legislation aimed at regulating the sale of liquor in the interest of public health and road safety. The court analyzed the scope of Section 71(2)(e), which empowers the government to make rules for the regulation of the sale of liquor, including the distance at which shops may be situated. The court held that Rule 3(11-C) was directly relatable to the object of the Act and was not ultra vires. It further held that the restriction was reasonable and did not violate Article 19(1)(g) as it was imposed in the interest of the general public. The court also rejected the argument of discrimination under Article 14, noting that the rule applied uniformly to all licensees. The court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the rule.
Headnote
A) Excise Law - Validity of Delegated Legislation - Rule 3(11-C) of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 - Section 71(2)(e) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 - Petitioners challenged the rule imposing a distance restriction of 100 meters from national/state highways for liquor shops - Court held that the rule is within the rule-making power under Section 71(2)(e) and is not ultra vires - The restriction is reasonable and in public interest, aimed at preventing accidents and ensuring road safety - Held that the rule does not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution (Paras 10-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 3(11-C) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 is ultra vires the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?
Final Decision
All writ petitions are dismissed. Rule 3(11-C) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 is held to be intra vires the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Rule 3(11-C) of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules
- 1968 is intra vires Section 71(2)(e) of Karnataka Excise Act
- 1965
- Distance restriction of 100 meters from national/state highways is reasonable and not arbitrary
- Rule does not violate Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India
- Delegated legislation cannot be struck down on ground of hardship alone
