http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3630-3631 of 2003 Appeal (civil)  4648-4653 of 2003 Appeal (civil)  8123 of 2003 Appeal (civil)  8124 of 2003

PETITIONER: The Prohibition & Excise Supdt., A.P. & Ors.                            

RESPONDENT: Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally  & Ors.                      

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/2003

BENCH: CJI., & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan,J.

       These appeals were filed by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent of  various divisions and districts of Andhra Pradesh against the final judgment dated  10.01.2003 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 19186  and 21096 of 2002 etc. batch wherein the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by  the respondents herein, who are having licenses for selling toddy at their respective  shops, striking down the amended Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy  Licenses General Conditions) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ’the A.P. Excise  Rules’) of its retrospective effect.  The High Court held it as prospective in its operation   and quashed the suspension of licenses and show-cause notices issued for  cancellation with regard to the various toddy shops of the respondents in this batch of  appeals.         The facts leading to these appeals being practically are the same, they are being  disposed of by this common judgment by consent of parties.   The short facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under:-         The respondents herein are all members of Toddy Tappers Cooperative  Societies.  On 26.08.2002, 42 shops were raided out of which 29 shops were found to  contain no adulterated toddy on the spot and the F.I.Rs were registered.  As the  Government Laboratories are not well equipped with sophisticated technology for  detecting adulteration, the concerned excise officials sought permission of the trial  Court for sending the samples to the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology and  Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Hyderabad for chemical analysis.  The trial Court  permitted and accordingly the samples were sent to the above laboratories for chemical  analysis.  The above laboratories, after chemical analysis, sent their reports stating that  the toddy samples contain Alprazolam, which substance is injurious to health.  After  receipt of the above reports, the concerned Prohibition and Excise officials, by their  various proceedings, suspended licenses of the respondents herein.  The respondents  filed various writ petitions challenging the suspension order before the High Court and  contended that the instant chemical analysis at the time of seizure does not disclose  any adulteration and sending the samples to the independent laboratories other than  the Government laboratories is violative of Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise Rules.  Counter  affidavits and additional counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the appellants herein  before the High Court explaining the legal and factual position.  The Division Bench of  the High Court, by its common judgment, dated 10.01.2003 while upholding the  amendment of Rule 24 struck down the same with regard to giving retrospective effect  and quashed the suspension of the licenses and show-cause notices for cancellation  and allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein accordingly.  The  appellants herein filed Review Petition before the High Court seeking review of the said  order which was also dismissed by the High Court.  Aggrieved by the same, the State  has preferred all the above appeals questioning the correctness and legality of the  order impugned in these appeals.  The High Court, while allowing the writ petitions, has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

observed thus: "The learned senior counsel Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao further submitted at the  bar that the amended rule cannot have a retrospective effect.  It was also  pointed out that the amendment was made on 21.11.2002 by way of  subordinate legislation and the subordinate legislation has no retrospective  effect and, therefore, the said amended rule has to be struck down.

While rebutting the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the  petitioners, the learned Advocate-General submitted at the bar that the  Government do not have a laboratory having sophisticated machinery and  equipment to analysis the toddy so as to ascertain whether there is any   type of  adulteration or not, which is injurious to the health of the  public at large and,  therefore, the Government was constrained to issue the aforesaid G.O. so that  the Government officers can send the sample drawn to the independent  laboratory having sophisticated machinery and equipment.  This was done to  protect the  health of the public at large and, therefore, it cannot be said to be  unreasonable and arbitrary.

We agree with the submission made by the learned Advocate-General  that  there may be laudable intention on the part of the Government to protect  the health of the public at large those who were interested in consuming toddy.   It being a subordinate legislation, it cannot have retrospective effect.

The learned counsel Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao further submitted that the  intention of taking the sample as laid down under the Act and sending  the  same to the Government Laboratory is not only the procedural aspect as  submitted by the Advocate-General but it is a substantive one as well as  procedural law as contained in the Excise Act.

We are not prepared to hold that the amended rule is violative of any  article.  It was done with a laudable object of protecting the health of the public  at large.  But it cannot have a retrospective effect.  Therefore, in our considered  view that the suspension of licenses and issuing show cause notices etc., for  cancelling the licenses are only illegal and arbitrary and any other action taken  by the respondents against the petitioners under the A.P. Excise Act is also  illegal and arbitrary in the present situation."

        In the above facts and circumstances, the following three questions of law would  emerge for our consideration: a)      Whether the High Court is justified in striking down the retrospective  effect of Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licenses General  Conditions) Rules, 1969 in the facts and circumstances of the case which  was amended in the larger public interest; b)      Whether the amended Rule is not procedural in nature and as such can  its retrospective effect be struck down; c)      Whether the High Court is justified in quashing the suspension of licenses  and show-cause notices in the facts and circumstances of the case. We heard the arguments of Mr. Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal, learned senior  counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the  respondents.  Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court  has erred in striking down amended Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise Rules of its  retrospective effect in the facts and circumstances of the case which was amended in  the larger public interest and to detect and prevent selling of adulterated toddy.   According to learned senior counsel for the appellants, the amended Rule 24 is  procedural in nature and as such there is nothing illegality in it in giving retrospective  effect.  He would further submit that the amended Rule 24 enables to send the samples  to the independent laboratories for analysis of the toddy and such rule having  retrospective effect is not violating any provisions of the said rules.  According to  learned senior counsel for the appellants, the High Court has failed to notice that the  Government in its Memo dated 01.07.2002 permitted the Commissioner of Prohibition  and Excise for sending the samples seized to the independent laboratories for chemical  analysis. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the licensees  submitted that G.O.Ms. No. 973 Revenue (Excise-II) Department dated 21.11.2002  amending Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise Rules issued by the appellants cannot have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

retrospective effect.  According to him, Section 72 (3) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968  stipulates that any rule made under the Act may be made with retrospective effect and  when such a rule is made, the reasons for making the rule shall be specified in a  statement to be laid before both Houses of the State Legislature.  He would further  submit that Section 72 (4) of the A.P. Excise Act mandates that every rule made under  Section 72 of the Act, shall, immediately after it is made be laid before each House of  the State Legislature if it is in Session and if it is not in Session, in the Session  immediately following for a total period of 14 days, which may be comprised in one  session or in two successive sessions and if before the expiration of the session in  which it is so laid or the session immediately following both Houses agree in making  any modification in the Rule or in the annulment of the Rule.  In the instant case, while  amending Rule 24, the same was admittedly not placed before the State Legislature,  which was in session from 17.02.2003 till 29.03.2003 as such G.O.Ms. 973 Revenue  (Excise II) is void and ineffective. Mr. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, further contended that the amendment  was made by way of subordinate legislation, which cannot have retrospective effect.   The Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise Rules is not procedural but confers substantial rights to  the parties and, therefore, the enactment of the Rule with retrospective effect violates  Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.  He would further submit that the Metropolitan  Magistrate exercised his non-existent jurisdiction of referring the sample bottle to the  Forensic Science Laboratories and Indian Institute of Chemical Technology violating the  then existing Rule 24, acting on the request of the authorities and as such the aforesaid  action is void ab initio and the said void action cannot confer any rights to the appellants   herein. Before considering the rival submissions, it is useful to reproduce Rule 24 of the  A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licenses General Conditions) Rules, 1969, which read  as follows: "24.  Drawal of Samples :-  Any Excise Officer, not below the rank of the sub-Inspector  of Excise or Food Inspector appointed under the Prevention of  Food Adulteration Act,  1954, shall be competent, any time, to take samples of arrack or toddy, in the  possession of the licensee or any other person storing arrack or toddy, for the purpose  of analysis.  Such officer shall take three samples in the presence of the licensee or  his agent or any other person in-charge of the licensed premises or who is found  selling toddy in the said premises, after conducting a Panchanama.  The sample shall  be sent to the Court with a requisition to send, one of the samples expeditiously to the  Chemical Examiner of the Excise Department having jurisdiction in the region, in which  licensed premises are situated, for chemical Examination.  If the sample sent to the  Chemical Examiner/Laboratory is damaged,  in transit or otherwise before the  completion of the analysis,   the Court may be requested by the concerned officer to  send a second sample, to the Chemical Examiner/Laboratory.  If the licensee desires  that the sample should be sent for analysis to an independent Laboratory, he may  apply to the Excise Superintendent within three days of the drawal of the sample.  In  cases where the licensee or any one of  his Nowkarnama holders was not present at  the time of taking of samples, the licensee should apply within seven days.  The  application should be accompanied by a demand draft for an amount sufficient to  cover the analysis charges.  If no such application is filed within the requisite time limit ,  the license shall not be entitled to seek analysis by an independent laboratory  thereafter.  On receipt of the application within the time and with requisite demand  draft, the concerned officer shall request the Court to send a sample to the  independent laboratory chosen by the licensee."

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, as already noticed, by notification issued in  G.O.Ms. No. 973 Revenue (Excise-II), Department dated 21.11.2002 amended Rule 24  providing to send the samples for independent laboratories and the same was given  retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.07.2002. The amended Rule reads as follows:- "In the said Rules, for Rule 24, the following shall be substituted namely:-

24.    Drawal of Samples :  Any Excise Officer, not below the rank of the sub- Inspector of Excise or Food  Inspector appointed under the Prevention of  Food  Adulteration Act, 1954, shall be competent, any time, to take samples of arrack  or toddy, in the possession of the licensee or any other person storing arrack or  toddy, for the purpose of analysis.  Such officer shall take three samples in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

presence of the licensee or his agent or any other person in-charge of the  licensed premises or who is found selling toddy in the said premises, after  conducting a Panchanama.  The sample shall be sent to the Court with a  requisition  to send, one of the samples expeditiously to the Chemical Examiner  of the Excise Department having jurisdiction in the region, in which licensed  premises are situated, or to any independent laboratory as instructed by the  Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, for chemical Examination.  If the  sample sent to the Chemical Examiner/Laboratory is damaged, in transit or  otherwise before the completion of the analysis, the Court may be requested by  the concerned officer to send a second sample, to the Chemical  Examiner/Laboratory.  If the licensee desires that the sample should be sent for  analysis to an independent Laboratory, he may apply to the Excise  Superintendent within three days of the drawal of the sample.  In cases where  the licensee or any one of his Nowkarnama holders was not present at the time  of taking of samples, the licensee should apply within seven days.  The  application should be accompanied by a demand draft for an amount sufficient  to cover the analysis charges.  If no such application is filed within the requisite  time limit, the licensee shall not  be entitled to seek analysis by an independent  laboratory thereafter.  On receipt of the application within the time and with  requisite demand draft, the concerned officer shall request the Court to send a  sample to the independent laboratory chosen by the licensee."

We have perused the pleadings, annexures and the relevant rules Section 72 of  the A.P. Excise Act and other relevant records.  We have also perused the report  submitted (Annexure-P1) by the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology.  It was  submitted by the respondents that the entire action is vitiated by malafides and that the  authorities are acting under the influence of some powerful lobby and that there is no  provision in law enabling the authorities to send the samples to unauthorised institution.   We have already extracted Rule 24 and the amended Rule and the decision of the  Government.  The Government in order to contain the menace of adulteration of toddy  and in order to implement the policy guidelines to curb the adulteration of toddy crimes  felt necessary to check the toddy shops and raw samples by utilising the services of the  prohibition and excise officers for analysis.  It was argued on behalf of the State that  there is no facility in the Regional Science Laboratory to identify the adulterants like  Alprazolam etc. in the toddy and hence the Commissioner, P& E vide his proceedings  dated 18.05.2002 addressed the Government seeking the permission to send the toddy  samples drawn to different independent laboratories having sophisticated equipment for  analysis and identified the possible adulterants in the toddy like Alprazolam, the  consumption of which is highly injurious to health.  Accordingly, the Government vide  Memo No. 320726/Excise-II/2/2002-1 dated 01.07.2002 permitted the Commissioner to  send the toddy samples drawn to independent laboratories for analysis in conformity  with the policy and purpose of the Act, directions were issued to the subordinate  officers.  Thus, it is seen that the primary object is to regulate sale of pure toddy withou t  any adulteration of foreign ingredients or substances which are highly injurious and  endanger to the lives of the toddy consuming public.  A request was made to the  concerned Courts to send the samples for chemical analysis and the Magistrate  concerned have ordered to send the sample bottles one each to the independent  laboratories for analysis.  As per the analysis reports received, it is proved that  Alprazolam is present in 28 cases and in the remaining cases the toddy is found free  from other foreign substances and as such authorities issued orders suspending the  licenses of 29 toddy shops pending inquiry where adulteration is noticed in order to  prevent the licensee from indulging in the sale of adulterated toddy any further and to  safeguard the health of toddy consuming public. We have already noticed that the impugned orders were challenged on various  grounds on the orders passed by the High Court.  In our opinion, as per the amended  provision of Rule 24 which have come into force w.e.f. 01.07.2002 vide vide G.O.Ms.  973 dated 21.11.2002 as instructed by the Commissioner of P & E, toddy samples  drawn under the said Rule can be sent to an independent laboratory for chemical  examination.  Even otherwise, the Court had ordered samples to be sent to the A.P.  Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad and the Indian Institute of  Technology, Hyderabad.  The Department had made out a case that the licensees to  toddy shops have violated the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and the Rules and the  licence conditions by selling adulterated toddy with Alprazolam which is injurious to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

public health as immediate action was warranted to prevent the licensee from indulging  in sales of adulterated toddy any further.  The samples were sent to the independent  laboratories as per the amended provision.  It is stated that Alprazolam is a notified  drug under NDPS Act included at serial no. 30 of the schedule to Clause XIII of Section  2 and the licensees of toddy shops have, therefore, violated the provisions of Section  8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.  The licensees have also violated the provisions of Rule 5  of the A.P. Excise "Trapping of Trees on toddy shops special condition licence" Rules,  1969 and Rule 11 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licenses General Conditions)  Rules, 1969 by mixing Alprazolam in toddy which was found in the toddy kept for sale  and, therefore, the licensees have rendered themselves liable for action under the  provisions of the A.P. Excise Act.  It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the  appellants herein that they have totally denied the allegations made in the affidavit filed  in the writ petition and stated that it is not possible to detect the adulterants like  Allprazolam toddy sample in the Government laboratory and in such circumstances the  Commissioner addressed the Government seeking permission to send the toddy  samples drawn to different independent laboratories having sophisticated equipment for  analysis and identified the possible adulterants in the toddy like Alprazolam  consumption of which is highly injurious to health of toddy consuming public.   Accordingly, the Government on 01.07.2002 permitted the Commissioner P & E to send  the samples drawn to independent laboratories for analysis and the samples were  found adulterant like Alprazolam by the laboratories.  The procedure followed by the  appellants in sending the samples to independent laboratory is correct in accordance  with the amended Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise which came into force with retrospective  effect from 01.07.2002.  This, in our opinion, was done to protect the health of the  public at large and, therefore, it cannot be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary.  The  intention of the Government is laudable since the same has been done to protect the  health of the public at large.  It is also a settled law by catena of decisions of this Cour t  that no citizen has got any fundamental right for the trade in liquor and it is for the  Government to evolve the excise policy and implement the same in the interest of the  public and safeguard the public.  There is no merit in the submission of the learned  senior counsel for the respondent that the amended provision being the subordinate  legislation cannot have retrospective effect.  In our opinion, the amended rule is not  violative of any article and it was done with a laudable object of protecting the health of  public at large and that sending the samples to the independent Government  laboratories is only a procedural aspect.  Therefore, in our opinion, the order passed by  the High Court is liable to be interfered with and we do so accordingly.  The High Court  has wrongly struck down the amended provision of Rule 24 and quashed the  suspension of the licenses and show-cause notices for cancellation and allowed the writ  petitions of the respondents accordingly.  This apart, the amendment was made in the  larger public interest and to detect and prevent selling of adulterated toddy.  In our view,   the amended Rule 24 is procedural in nature and as such there is nothing illegal or  wrong in giving retrospective effect.  The High Court, in our view, has failed to notice  that Rule 24 only enables the authorities to send the samples to the independent  laboratories for analysis of the toddy and such rule having retrospective effect is not  violating any provisions of the said rules or the provisions of the Act.  It is also not in  dispute that the Government laboratories are not well equipped with sophisticated  technology to detect adulteration.  The rule was amended providing for sending the  samples to the well-equipped laboratories to detect and control adulteration of toddy  effectively.  Thus, we are of the opinion that the Government can get tested the  samples from independent laboratories also in the light of the amended Rule 24 which  is in the larger public interest.  This apart, the High Court has not noticed that even  under the unamended Rule 24 the authorities can initiate inquiry after violation of the  conditions of the licenses and selling adulterated toddy and can take necessary action  and, therefore, the High Court ought not to have quashed the suspension of licenses  and the show-cause notices for cancellation.   We shall now consider the argument of Mr. K.K. Venugopal in regard to Section  72(3) of the A.P. Excise Act which stipulates that any rule made under the Act may be  made with retrospective effect and when such a rule is made, the reason for making the  rule shall be specified in a statement to be laid before both Houses of the State  Legislature.  Our attention was also invited to Section 72(4) of the said Act which  mandates that every rule made under Section 72 of the Act shall immediately be laid  before each Houses of the State Legislature if it is in session and if it is not in session  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

the session immediately following.  Section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968  reads as under: "72.  Power to make rules:- (1) The Government may, by notification make rules for carrying out all or any        of the purposes of this Act. (2)  In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing        provision, the Government may make rules-,       (a) prescribing the powers and duties of Prohibition and Excise Officers;       (b) regulating the delegation of any power by the Commissioner or the            Collector or the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent under Section 8;       (c) prescribing the time and manner of presenting appeals and the            procedure for dealing with appeals;       (d) regulating the import, export, transport, manufacture, cultivation,            possession, supply or storage of any intoxicant and may, by such rules,              among other matters-           (i) regulate the tapping of excise trees, the drawing of toddy from such                excise trees, the making of the same and the maintenance of such                marks;           (ii) declare the process by which spirit shall be denatured and the                denaturation of spirit ascertained;           (iii) cause spirit to be denatured through the agency or under the                 supervision of its own officers; and                       (iv) regulating the drawing of neera and the sale thereof;       (e) regulating the periods and localities in which and the persons or            classes of persons to whom, licences for the wholesale or retail sale or            buying of any intoxicant, may be granted and regulating the number of            such licences which may be granted in any area;        (f) prescribing the procedure to be followed and the matters to be             ascertained before any licence for such sale or buying is granted for             any locality;        (g) regulating the time, place and manner of payment of any duty or fee             and the taking of security for the due payment of any duty or fee:        (gg) specifying the factors which should be taken into consideration for                according or withholding approval under Section 24 and the period                within which, and the manner in which such approval shall be                accorded or withheld.         (h) prescribing the authority by which, the form in which and the terms              and conditions on the subject to which any licence or permit shall be               granted or issued and may, by rules, among other matters-  (i) fix the period for which any licence or permit shall continue to be in      force; (ii) prescribe the scale of fees of the manner of fixing the fees payable      in respect of any lease, licence or permit, or the storing of any      excisable article; (iii) prescribe the amount of security to be deposited by the holders of       any licence or permit for the performance of the conditions of the       same; (iv) prescribe the accounts to be maintained and the returns to be       submitted by licence holders; (v) prohibit or regulate the transfer of licences; and (vi) prescribe the ages under which it shall be unlawful to employ        children and to sell or give to children excisable articles;        (i) providing for the destruction or other disposal of any intoxicant deemed             to be unfit for use;                    (j) regulating disposal of confiscated articles;        (k) regulating the grant of expenses to witnesses and to persons charged              with offences under the Act, and subsequently released or acquitted;         (l) regulating the powers of Prohibition and Excise Officers to summon              witnesses;         (m) prescribing the tax payable to the Government in respect of excise                trees from which toddy is drawn;          (n) constituting mobile courts of Magistrates in consultation with the High               Court, for the trial of offences against any provisions of this Act or the               rules or orders made thereunder;                      (o) any other matter that may be prescribed under this Act;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

(3)Any rule under this Act may be made with retrospective effect and  when such a rule is made the reasons for making the rule shall be  specified in a statement to be laid before both Houses of the State  Legislature.

(4) Every rule made under this Act, shall, immediately after it is made be  laid before each House of the State Legislature if it is in session and if it  is not in session, in the session immediately following for a total period  of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two       successive sessions and if before the expiration of the session in which  it is so laid or the session immediately following both Houses agree in       making any modification in the rule or in the annulment of the rule, the  rule shall, from the date on which the modification or annulment is  notified, have effect only in such modified form or shall stand annulled,  as the case may be, so however that any such modification or  annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of any thing  previously done under that rule.     

Section 72 deals with the Government’s power to make Rules for carrying out all  or any of the purposes of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.  Sub-section (3) of  Section 72 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 confers power on the State Government to give  retrospective   effect to Rules made thereunder. We have already elaborately discussed about the retrospectivity given to Rule  24 in paragraphs supra.  Rule 24 has been amended by the Government in order to  curb menace of adulteration of toddy and in order to implement the policy guidelines to  curb the adulteration of toddy crimes and also to check the toddy shops and draw  samples by utilising the services of the prohibition and excise officers for analysis.  Rule   24 has been amended in the larger public interest which enables the officials to send  the samples to the independent laboratories for analysis of the toddy.  Such rule having  retrospective effect is not violating any provisions of the said Rules.  Retrospectivity  given to Rule 24, in our opinion, is consistent with Section 72(3) of the A.P. Excise Act,  1968.      Mr. Venugopal submitted even though the legislature was in session from  17.02.2003 till 29.03.2003 the amended rule was not placed before the legislature and,  therefore, the said rule is void and ineffective.  This argument has no merit and basis.   To appreciate the above argument, the following dates may be noticed. 26.08.2002                              Inspection by the officials  26.09.2002 &  09.10.2002                Writ petitions were filed in the HC 30.11.2002                              Show-causes notices were issued 21.11.2002                              G.O.M.S. 973 was issued amending rules                                         which comes into force with retrospective                                         effect from 01.07.2002.

10.01.2003                              HC allowed the writ petitions filed by                                                  the respondents holding the action                                                 initiated by the appellants as illegal and                                                 quashed the suspension of licenses and                                                  the show-cause notices for cancelling the  lincence.

It was argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that since the writ  petitions were filed on 26.09.2002 and 09.10.2002 in the High Court, the amended rule  could not be placed before the State Legislature.  This apart, the High Court has  allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein on 10.01.2003 itself, no useful  purpose would be served in placing the amended rule before the legislature which was  in session on 17.02.2003 till 29.03.2003.  The said order is set aside by the appropriate  forum.  In view of the above factual position, the amended rule could not be placed  before the State legislature and there is every justification for the appellants for not  placing the same before the joint legislature.  In fact, the Government has challenged  the impugned order passed by the High Court by filing a Special Leave Petition in this  Court on 24.03.2003 itself.  We, therefore, hold that the High Court is not justified in  striking down the retrospective effect of Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise Rules, 1969 in the  facts and circumstances of this case which was amended in the larger public interest

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

and that the amended rule is procedural in nature and as such retrospective effect can  be given to the said rule.  We also hold that the High Court is not justified in quashing  the cancellation of licenses and show cause notices for cancellation of licence in the  facts and circumstances of the case.  In view of this judgment, the appellants are at  liberty to place the amended Rule 24 before the State legislature in accordance with  Section 72(3) and (4) of the said Act.  The Government is also at liberty to proceed  further pursuant to the show cause notices issued and dispose of the matter in  accordance with law and after affording opportunity to the respondents herein.   For the foregoing reasons, all the orders passed by the High Court in writ  petitions filed by the respondents are set aside and all the appeals filed by the  appellants herein stand allowed reserving liberty to the appellants herein to proceed  further pursuant to the show cause notices issued and decide the matter in accordance  with law after affording opportunity to the respondents.  No costs.