http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT SIDHA ANDAYURVEDA VAIDYAR SANGAM AND AN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/03/1996

BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1314            JT 1996 (3)   427  1996 SCALE  (2)824

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T N.P. SINGH, J      The appellants  who manufacture  and deal  in ayurvedic and unani  medicines questioned  the validity  of the  Tamil Nadu   Spirituous   Preparations   (Control)   Rules,   1984 (hereinafter referred  to as  the ’Rules’)  framed under the exercise of  the power  conferred by Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition  Act, 1937  thereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) before  the High  Court which has upheld the validity of the  said Rules.  The order  by which the aforesaid Rules were notified  gives the object of the framing of the Rules, saying that  by G.O.Ms.  No.3031, Home, dated 1.11.1958, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16 of the  aforesaid Act  had exempted the medicinal and toilet preparations containing  alcohol and/or  intoxicating  drugs from all  provisions of  the said  Act, subject  to  certain conditions. But  the conditions  were found to be inadequate to check effectively the manufacture and sale of medicines containing alcohol  and because  of that a decision had been taken to  frame a  separate set  of Rules. Rule 3(b) defines alcohol to  mean ethyl  alcohol of  any strength  and purity having the  chemical composition  of C2  H5  OH.  Rule  3(J) defines "restricted preparations" :           "spirituous preparations  that      are    intended     for    internal      consumption  and   containing  more      than  18%   v/v  of   alcohol   and      medicinal  preparations  containing      intoxicating drugs.           Provided  that  all  ayurvedic      preparations    containing    self-      generated alcohol and classified as      ’restricted preparations’ under the      Medicinal and  Toilet  Preparations

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    (Excise Duties)  Rules, 1956  shall      be    treated     as     restricted      preparations  for  the  purpose  of      these rules . Similarly Rule 3(k) defines ’spirituous preparations":      "Spirituous preparations" means -      i)   any    medicinal   or   toilet      preparation   containing   alcohol,      whether      self-generated      or      otherwise,  or   any   intoxicating      drug; or      ii) any  other substance containing      alcohol   or   intoxicating   drug,      whether selfgenerated or otherwise,      notified  under  rule  5  to  be  a      spirituous preparation, Rule 11  provides for  grant of  wholesale and  retail  sale licences in  different forms  prescribed therein for sale of any homeopathic  medicinal preparation  or "any  preparation coming  under   the  indigenous  system  of  medicine  to  a registered medical practioner or to those holding licence in Forms L1  and L2 under the Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 or a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act of 1940)".      According to  the appellants,  the provisions aforesaid requiring  licences   for  sale   of  indigenous  system  of medicines  by  medical  practitioner  or  by  those  holding licence under  the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules,  1956 or  holders of licences under Drugs and Cosmetics Act,  1940 amounts to unreasonable restrictions on the right  of wholesale  and retail  dealers to deal in such indigenous system of medicines.      It cannot  be disputed  that power to frame such Rules, requiring the  wholesale dealers  and retail  dealers to get licences before  dealing in  indigenous system  of medicines must flow  from the  provisions of  the Act under which such Rules have  been framed.  Section 3(9)  of the  Act  defines "liquor" :           "liquor"              includes      toddy,/country Liquor,  spirits  or      wine, (denatured spirits), spirits,      wine,   beer,    and   all   liquid      consisting   of    or    containing      alcohol". Section 54 vests power in the State Government to make rules for the  purpose of  carrying into  effect the provisions of the said  Act. Clause  (m) of  sub-section (2) of Section 54 says:-           "Clause    (m)-     for    the      prevention of  the use of medicinal      or  toilet  purposes  and  for  the      regulation of the use of any liquor      or drug exempted from all or any of      the use provisions of this Act." On a  plain  reading  Section  54(2)(m)  enables  the  State Government to  make rules  for regulating  the  use  of  any liquor for medicinal or toilet purposes. We are not able to appreciate as  to how  in face of Section 54(2)(m) it can be held that  the State Government could not have regulated the use of  liquor  which  shall  include  alcohol  in  view  of definition  of  liquor  under  Section  3(9)  aforesaid.  As already pointed  out above,  Rule 3(k)  defines  ’spirituous preparations’ to mean any medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol  whether self-generated  or otherwise  or any intoxicating  drug. The  expression alcohol  has already

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

been defined in rule 3(b). In this background, if any wholesale or  retail dealer is to sell any preparation which contains alcohol  whether self-generated or otherwise or any intoxicating drug, then he has to obtain licence as required by Rule 11 of the Rules. From reading the Rules, it is apparent  and obvious  that they  purport to regulate the sale of spirituous preparations and restricted preparations through homeopathic  or indigenous  system of medicines. The restrictions imposed  by the  Rules are  consistent with the provisions of the Act and the State Government had authority to frame such Rules under Section 54(2)(m).      On behalf  of the  appellants it  was pointed  out that they are  dealing in  many products  of indigenous system of medicines and  all of  them do not contain alcohol. In other words, majority  of the  medicinal preparations  are neither spirituous   preparations    nor   restricted   preparations containing any  alcohol. This  according to  us,  is  of  no significance or  consequence. Once  it  is  found  that  the appellants have  been  dealing  and  selling  any  medicinal preparation through indigenous system of medicines which can be  held   to  be   restricted  preparation   or  spirituous preparation then  the  provisions  of  the  Rules  shall  be attracted and  the appellant  can  deal  only  on  basis  of licences  being  granted  for  the  same.  The  notification through which  the rules  were notified as already mentioned above clearly indicate the object and the reason for framing such rules.  The primary  object is  to regulate the sale of medicinal or  toilet preparations  containing alcohol and/or intoxicating drugs,  which is consistent with the scheme and provisions of  the Act  i.e. prohibition of the manufacture, sale and  consumption of  intoxicating liquors  and drugs in the State  of Tamil  Nadu. The  impugned order  of the  High Court requires  no interference.  The appeal  is accordingly dismissed. In  the fact and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.