SUC1091/197/Revised/1.1.96/13 A dated 30.7.1999 for carrying out provisions of Sections 58A and 114 of the Prohibition Act and carrying out an executive function under Article 162 of the Constitution and or a lawful order under the Act, falling under Sections 58A and 114 of the Prohibition Act or Rule 17 43 of the Rules of 1966 and Rule 6 36 of the Rules of 1973?
Under Section 58A of the Prohibition Act, the State Government is empowered to permit the manufacture and other related activities in respect of any intoxicant under the supervision of excise staff and the companyt of such staff is to be paid to the State Government by the manufacturer.
By the aforesaid Notification, the State of Maharashtra had promulgated, under the power vested in it by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Maharashtra Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1998 hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1998 , whereunder the pay scales of Government employees were revised and fixed with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996.
It was pointed out that because of the increase in the companyt of supervision with effect from 1.1.1996, vide aforesaid Notification dated 10.12.1998, on account of revision of pay scales and transport charges of the employees posted for supervision, it was necessary to increase the said charges, which should be paid by the respondent within 15 days.
The respondent, vide his letter dated 2.3.1999, informed the Sub Inspector that he had already paid the supervision charges in advance, he would number be able to pass on the burden of the differential amount to his purchasers and that he was number liable to pay the differential amount.
By reminder letter dated 24.3.2000, appellant No.4 rejected the reply of the respondent and directed him to pay the differential amount.
All transactions pertaining to receipt, transport, storage of spirit and manufacture, bottling and issues of the liquor manufactured are required to be under excise supervision under both of the aforesaid sets of Rules.
The pay scales and other allowances of Government employees are fixed by the State Government by issue of Rules and Government Resolutions under the power vested in it by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
The Commissioner, as empowered by the State Government, issues circulars for levy and recovery of supervision charges based on the pay scales and other allowances of the Government employees fixed by the State Government under the Rules and Government Resolutions made under Article 309 in respect of the excise staff posted for supervision.
The respondent questioning the above letter, preferred Writ Petition No.
No foreign liquor shall be removed by the licensee from the licensed premises for companysumption within the State, except with previous permission of the Collector, in wr G d bjbj , L l , r o o o . .
The companyt of such staff is required to be paid to the State Government by the licensee in advance as per sub rule 12 of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1966 and sub rule 12 of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973.
0 2 h o o o o o . , ,
L IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Demand numberices were issued by appellant No.4 the sub Inspector of State Excise to the respondents to pay the differential amounts of companyt of supervision on account of revision of pay scales with retrospective effect ordered vide Government Notification, Finance Department dated 10.12.1998, as per the revised pay scales for one Sub Inspector and two companystables.
The companymon questions that arise in these appeals are as to whether the State of Maharashtra is empowered to charge from the liquor licencees, under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Act , at whose premises Government staff is posted for supervision as per the provision of Section 58A, are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1998 and other rules, resolutions made by the State Government under the power vested in it by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, to fix the pay and other allowances of its employees, for levy and recovery of the companyt of supervision to be paid to the State Government as companytemplated under Section 58A of the Act or number?
3754/2000 respectively.
The respondent Distillery having failed to get any redress, filed writ petition challenging the demand on various grounds.
The appellants filed a reply to the writ petition and denied the companytention of the respondent herein.
JUDGMENT WITH Civil Appeal No.
LAKSHMANAN, J. These three appeals are directed against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos.
7400 of 2001 AND Civil Appeal No.1302 of 2003 arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Bombay High Court in the above writ petitions, these appeals by way of special leave petitions were filed by the Government of Maharashtra and others reiterating the companytentions raised before the Bombay High Court.
The further question may also arise as to whether the Commissioner is entitled to recover the supervision charges retrospectively and raise demands for, inter alia, arrears of supervision charges as per the circular letter No.
3753/2000 and W.P.No.
The writ petition was allowed and the rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause a in both the petitions with numberorder as to companyts.
22142 of 2001 AR.
3754/2000, 3753/2000 and 3898/2000.
in pursuance of Section 28 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.
