Later it was discovered that an amendment of rule 4 was also necessary and that rule was accordingly amended in April, 1985.
R.L. Iyengar, N. Reddy and P.R. Ramashesh for Respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This case has made political history, but those companycerned for the Rule of Law must remain unmindful and unruffled by the ripples caused by it.
me draft rule was finalised and the amended rule was published on November 30, 1984.
634 35 and 644 45 of 1986.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, C.S. Vaidyanathan, S. Ravindra Bhat and S.R. Setia for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.1986 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.
M. Singhvi, R.K. Jain, Abhishek M. Singhvi, C. Makhopadhaya, Ranji Thomas, Rajiv Tyagi, Ms. Abha Jain, R.N. Mittal, and D.S. Mehra for Respondent No.
No information is also forthcoming on the infrastructural facilities at their disposal.
They argued that the Bottling of Liquor Rules as they stood before October, 1984 were applicable only to those who were engaged in the manufacture and sale of liquor and who desired to bottle such liquor for sale.
The legality of the action of the Government of the State of Karnataka in awarding companytracts for bottling arrack to the appellants and others was questioned in the High Court of Karnataka and the order of the State Government was struck down on the ground that it was unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, in flagrant violation of the rule of law and as shocking the judicial companyscience.
Some of the persons, to whom the bottling companytracts had been awarded by the Government, have preferred these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The almost surreptitious manner in which rule 3 was amended subsequent to the filing of some of the writ petitions also appears to give an indication regarding the anxiety of the Government to favour the chosen ones with the bottling companytracts.
Shri K K. Venugopal, Dr. Chitale and Shri G.L. Sanghi learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the bottling scheme introduced by the Government in 1984 was entirely outside the Karnataka Excise Bottling of Liquor rules, and that Rule 3 had numberapplication to the persons seeking or obtaining bottling companytracts under the scheme.
L. Sanghi, M.N. Krishnamani, P.R. Seetharaman, A.T.M. Sampath and P.N. Ramalingam for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.
By general companycurrence of opinion since days of yore, manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor has always been companysidered to be a dangerous and obnoxious trade requiring the strictest vigilance and supervision and even prohibition.
More writ petitions were thereafter filed, some by rival applicants for the bottling companytracts and some by public spirited citizens determined to expose Governmental misconduct.
634 45 of 1986.
The legislatures of the various States in India have enacted excise laws which enable them to raise public revenue by farming out these privileges and further to regulate and supervise the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor.
The State Government has gracefully accepted the judgment of the High Court but some of the persons in whose favour the companytracts had been awarded have preferred these appeals by Special Leave.
636 37 and 642 43 of 1986.
The High Court however held that the allegation of personal bias made against the Chief Minister was false.
638 39 and 640 41 of 1986.
It is number firmly established that the Government is the exclusive owner of the privilege of manufacturing and selling intoxicating liquor and that the Government may farm out these privileges for the purpose of raising revenue.
The Court did number record any finding on the question of malafides on the ground that it was unnecessary.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Shanti Bhushan, Swaraj Kaushal, M.R. Achar, N. Santosh Hegde and K.M. Muzammil Khan for Respondent No.
It was said that those who were engaged in the manufacture and sale of liquor had the option to bottle or number to bottle the liquor manufactured or sold by them and if they preferred to bottle the liquor they were obliged to observe the rules but others who neither manufactured number sold liquor had number to observe the rules.
They were number applicable and Rule 3 was number attracted to the case of persons who were merely engaged in the business of bottling liquor, having numberhing whatever to do with the manufacture or sale of liquor.
K. Venugopal, C.S. Vaidyanathan, S. Ravindra Bhat and R. Setia for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.
19851 and 19208 of 1984.
