http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2199-2203  of  1993 Appeal (civil)  2377     of  2001 Special Leave Petition (civil)  14845    of  1994 Appeal (civil)  172      of  1995 Appeal (civil)  2378     of  2001 Special Leave Petition (civil)  11674    of  1995 Appeal (civil)  2204-2208        of  1993

PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VATAN MEDICAL & GENERAL STORE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/03/2001

BENCH: R.C.Lahoti, S.V.Patil

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......J

     R.C.    Lahoti,  J.   Leave   granted  in  S.L.P.(C)   Nos. 14845/1994 and 11674/1995.

     The  Rajasthan  Excise  Act, 1950 (Act No.2  of  1950)  was passed  by  the  State  Legislature of  Rajasthan  to  enact  for Rajasthan  a  uniform  law  relating   to  the  import,   export, transport,  manufacture,  sale  and  possession  of  intoxicating liquor  and  of  intoxicating drugs.  It came into  force  w.e.f. 1.5.1950.   For the purpose of this judgment it would suffice  to notice  the  definitions of intoxicating drug and  liquor  as given in clauses (14) and (15) of Section 3 of the Act which read as under:- 3.  Definitions.-In this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context__

     xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

     (14) Intoxicating drug means-

     (i) the leaves, small stalks and flowering or fruiting tops of  the hemp plant (Cannabia Sativa) including all forms known as Bhang, Sidhi or Ganja;

     (ii)  charas,  that  is, the resin obtained from  the  hemp plant,  which  has not been submitted to any manipulations  other than those necessary for packing and transport;

     (iii)  any  mixture, with or without neutral materials,  of any  of  the  above  forms of intoxicating  drug,  or  any  drink prepared therefrom;  and

     (iv) any other intoxicating or narcotic substance which the State  Government  may declare;  by notification in the  Official Gazette,  to  be an intoxicating drug, such substance  not  being

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

opium,  coca  leaf  or  a manufactured drug  as  defined  in  the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 (Central Act II of 1930).

     (15) Liquor means intoxicating liquor and includes spirit of  Wine,  Spirit,  Wine,  Tari, Pachawar, Beer  and  all  liquid consisting of, or containing alcohol, as also any substance which the State Government may from time to time by notification in the Official  Gazette  declare to be liquor for the purposes of  this Act;

     In  exercise  of the powers conferred by Section 41 of  the Rajasthan  Excise  Act  1950,  the State  Government  framed  the Rajasthan  Intoxicating Spirituous Preparations, Import,  Export, Transport, Possession and Sales Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to  as  Rajasthan ISP Rules, for short) and published the  same vide  notification dated November 6, 1989.  In these rules,  vide clauses (g) of Rule 3, intoxicating spirituous preparations are defined  to  mean spirituous preparations notified as liquor  by the Government from time to time.  Extensive provisions are made in  the rules governing possession, import, export and transport, sale of intoxicating spirituous preparations (ISPs, for short).

     On  8.5.1990,  the State of Rajasthan issued the  following notification :- NOTIFICATION

     No.   F1(2) FD/Ex/89, S.O.25__dated 8.5.1990 __In  exercise of  the  power  conferred by sub-section (15) of  section  3  and sub-section(1)  of  Section 4 of the Rajasthan Excise  Act,  1950 (Raj.   Act  No.2 of 1950), read with rule 3(9) of the  Rajasthan Intoxicating  Spirituous Preparations, Import, Export, Transport, Possession  and  Sales  Rules,  1989   and  in  continuation   of Notification  No.F  49/(8)SR-53  dated 15.2.1957,  R.G.G.I.   (B) dated  28.2.57,  the State Government is pleased to  declare  all medicinal   and   toilet  preparations   and   other   spirituous preparations  containing more than 20% proof alcohol to be liquor for the purpose of the said Act and Rules.

     Several  writ  petitions  were filed in the High  Court  of Rajasthan  laying  challenge  to the constitutional  validity  of Rajasthan ISP Rules published vide notification dated November 6, 1989  and  the notification dated 8.5.1990 abovesaid.   The  writ petitions  were  filed  mostly  by   the  manufacturers  of  such Ayurvedic medicines which contained, as one of their ingredients, more  than 20% proof alcohol.  Some of the druggists and chemists holding  valid  licence  for  dealing   in  drugs  and  medicinal preparations,  some of the doctors practising in Ayurvedic system of medicines and some of the patients consuming such medicines on medical  prescriptions were also joined as parties.  Some of  the medicines  which  were  brought within the purview  of  Rajasthan Excise  Act  consequent  upon  the   issuance  of  the   impugned notifications  were  Mrit  Sanjivni,  Mrit  Sanjivni  Sura,  Mrit Sanjivni  Sudha,  Pudin  Hara manufactured by  Dabur  India  Ltd. According  to the petitioners, the said notifications were beyond the  legislative  competence  of the State  Government  and  also constituted  unreasonable  restriction  on fundamental  right  to trade  and  hence  were  violative of  Article  19(1)(g)  of  the Constitution.   The plea has found favour with the High Court  of Rajasthan   striking  down  the   impugned  notifications   dated 6.11.1989 and 8.5.1990 as unconstitutional.

     Before  we may proceed to notice the findings arrived at in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

the  impugned judgment and the reasonings in support thereof,  it would  be useful to set out various relevant entries from Seventh Schedule of the Constitution:

     SEVENTH SCHEDULE (Article 246)

     List I - Union List

     Entry  1.  Public order (but not including [the use of  any naval,  military  or  air force or any other armed force  of  the Union  or of any other force subject to the control of the  Union or of any contingent or unit thereof] in aid of the civil power).

     dispensaries  Entry  6.   Public   health  and  sanitation; hospitals and

     Entry 52.  Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared  by  Parliament  by law to be expedient  in  the  public interest.

     Entry  84.   Duties  of excise on tobacco and  other  goods manufactured or produced in India except__

     (a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption;

     (b)  opium,  Indian  hemp  and  other  narcotic  drugs  and narcotics,  but  including  medicinal   and  toilet   preparation containing alcohol or any substance included in sub-paragraph (b) of this entry.

     List II - State List

     Entry  8.   Intoxicating  liquors,  that  is  to  say,  the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors.

     Entry  51.   Duties  of  excise   on  the  following  goods manufactured  or produced in the State and countervailing  duties at  the  same  or lower rates on similar  goods  manufactured  or produced elsewhere in India :-

     (a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption;

     (b)  opium,  Indian  hemp  and  other  narcotic  drugs  and narcotics,  but  not including medicinal and toilet  preparations containing alcohol or any substance included in sub-paragraph (b) of this entry.

     List III - Concurrent List

     Entry  19.  Drugs and poisons, subject to the provisions of entry 59 of List I with respect to opium.

     According to the Rajasthan High Court, by virtue of Entry 8 List  II, the field of legislation available to State Legislature is  confined  to  intoxicating liquors only.  Drugs  can  be  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

subject  matter  of legislation by the State Legislature only  if there  is  no Central legislation covering the field.   But,  the entire  filed  as  far as drugs are concerned is covered  by  the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as amended from time to time.  The decision  of  the  Supreme Court in F.N.  Balsara Vs.   State  of Bombay  &  Anr.,  1951 SCR 682 assigning a wide  meaning  to  the expression  intoxicating  liquors  as   occurring  in  Entry  8 Schedule II so as to include therein even medicinal preparations, if  alcoholic contents thereof exceed a prescribed degree, so  as to  be  capable  of  being misused as beverage,  was  doubted  in Synthetics  and Chemicals Ltd.  Vs.  State of U.P., (1990) 1  SCC 109  wherein it was observed (vide para 74) that the decision  of the Supreme Court in Balsaras case required reconsideration.  In view  of  the  Constitution  Bench  decision  in  Synthetics  and Chemcials  Ltd.   the expression intoxicating liquor has to  be construed  narrowly  and  therefore Entry 8 of List  II  was  not available   for   regulating   manufacture,   production,   sale, transport,  etc.   of medicinal preparations.  In the opinion  of the  Rajasthan  High Court, the impugned rules  and  notification could  not be sustained by reference to Entry 8 List II and there was   no  other  power  available  to  the  State   to   regulate manufacture,  possession, sale, etc.  of medicinal  preparations. In  the alternative, the Rajasthan High Court has held the  State Legislature  competent to prevent the consumption of intoxicating beverages  and also to prevent use as drinks of alcoholic liquids which  are  not  normally consumed as drinks but they  could  not prevent  the  legitimate use of alcoholic preparations which  are not  beverages  or the use of medicinal and  toilet  preparations containing  alcohol.   The  Rajasthan High Court also  held  that referable  to  Entry  52 List I, the Parliament had  enacted  the Industries  (Development  and Regulation) Act, 1951.  Drugs  and Pharmaceuticals  were listed as item 22 in the First Schedule of the  Act.   Chapter  III of the ID & R Act empowers  the  Central Government   to  regulate   distribution,  transport,   disposal, acquisition,  possession,  use  or  consumption of  and  sale  or financial transactions relating to such articles as are specified in  the  Schedule.   Even  incidental  or  supplementary  matters relating  thereto  were brought within the power of  the  Central Government.   There  was yet another central enactment passed  by the  Parliament pursuant to resolutions passed by the  Provincial Legislatures,  the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution by sale of drugs and cosmetics. By  an  amendment introduced by Act No.13 of 1964, this  Act  was made  applicable to Ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicines also. Exhaustive  provisions contained in the newly added Chapter  IV-A and  the  several  sections  therein  covered  the  entire  field relating  to  Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs.  Section 33  EED empowered the Central Government to prohibit manufacture, sale or distribution  of  any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs in  public interest.   Sale and distribution of drugs by retail or wholesale and  manufacture  etc.  were all taken care of by the  Drugs  and Cosmetics  Rules,  1945  framed  by  the  Central  Government  in exercise  of the powers conferred by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.   Misuse of drugs as alcohol beverages has been fully taken care of by the Central Government.  The Rajasthan High Court then concluded as under:-

     The  facts  hereinabove clearly show that each  and  every aspect  of drug industry is amenable to Govt.  control and stands provided  for  under  these  Central  Statutes.   The  provisions contained  under  the Notification dated 6.11.89 are directly  at conflict with these Central provisions as would be evident from a bare  comparison.  The IS Rules seek to regulate the manufacture, possession,  transport  sale, consumption, import and  export  of medicinal  preparation containing alcohol.  But as already stated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

all these activities in all spheres already stand regulated under the  provisions  of  the Central Statutes  referred  above.   The Central  statutes  referred  above  being  enactments  framed  in exercise  of  power  under List I Seventh Schedule and  List  III Seventh  Schedule they would naturally prevail over the provision contained  under the impugned Notification.  Moreover, while  the Central  provisions  made  by  the  State  are  in  the  form  of subordinate legislation only.  [sic.]

     The  regulatory control by the State Government can only be introduced subject to its legislative competence in that respect. It  is  well  settled  that  even if  the  State  Legislature  is possessed  of  Legislative power to enact a particular Law,  that can  be  done  only  subject to the  provisions  of  any  Central Legislation  on that point.  Thus even if the State Government is deemed  to  be empowered to enact regulatory Laws in  respect  of medicinal  preparations,  they  could  exercise  that  regulatory control  in respect of medicinal preparations only subject to the provisions in this respect enacted by the Parliament.

     xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx@@                              IIIIII

     Even  if  for  a  moment  it  is  assumed  that  the  State Government  has  power to make regulatory provisions  apart  from constitutional entries, such power would always be subject to the power  of Parliament derived from an appropriate entry.  Once the Parliament  is  found  to  have  exercised  the  said  regulatory provisions,  resort cannot be taken by the State to the  residual sovereign  power  for  framing  any  regulatory  provisions  in respect   of  the  covered  field.    The  question  as  to   the availability  of  the  power  to make  regulatory  provisions  is totally  distinct from the question as to exercise of that  power in  a  case  where  the  field  is  already  covered  by  Central Legislation.

     By  virtue  of provisions contained in Drugs and  Cosmetics Act,  which  is  a legislation under Entry 19 of  the  concurrent list,  and  the provisions for prevention of misuse of  medicinal preparations  have been made and, therefore, the State Government was  not  empowered  to  frame  rules  in  respect  of  medicinal preparations.   The rules framed by State Government are  clearly beyond the scope of its authority.

     It  is  interesting to note that while the  Rajasthan  High Court  by  its impugned judgment dated 20.12.1991 disposed  of  a batch of writ petitions filed sometime in the year 1990, the High Court  of Delhi was almost simultaneously seized of hearing Civil Writ  Petition  No.1267 of 1987 filed sometime in the  year  1987 involving identical issues.  It was disposed of by decision dated 26th  March,  1992.  That writ petition was filed by M/s.   Dabur India Ltd., the manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines Mrit Sanjivni, Mrit  Sanjivni  Sura,  Mrit  Sanjivni  Sudha  and  Vrihad  (Maha) Darakshasava  -  a few amongst its several other  products  which four  products admittedly contained more than 40% proof  alcohol. Challenge  had  been laid to two notifications dated  3rd  March, 1987 and 5th March, 1987 issued by the Administrator of the Union Territory  of  Delhi  and by the Commissioner  of  Excise,  Delhi respectively,  the  effect  whereof  was  that  any  intoxicating spirituous   preparations,    including    Ayurvedic   medicines, containing  more  than 25% proof alcohol were brought within  the purview  of  Delhi Intoxicating Spirituous  Preparations  Import, Export,  Transport,  Possession and Sale Rules, 1952  (Delhi  ISP Rules,  for  short)  framed under the provisions  of  the  Punjab

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Excise  Act.   Section 3(12)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act  defines intoxicants  as  meaning  any   liquor  or  intoxicating  drug. Section  3(14)  defines  liquor  as  intoxicating  liquor   and includes  all  liquids consisting of or containing alcohol,  also any  substance  which  the  Lt.    Governor  of  Delhi,  may,  by Notification,  declare to be liquor for the purpose of this  Act. By  Notification  dated  7th  December, 1961  also  issued  under Section   3(14)  of  the  Punjab   Excise  Act   all   spirituous preparations containing more than 20% proof alcohol were declared to  be liquor for the purpose of the Act.  With effect from  17th March, 1987, by virtue of Notification dated 3rd March, 1987, the ISP  Rules became applicable to Ayurvedic and Unani  preparations as  well.   The main ground of challenge of the  petitioners  was that  the Punjab Excise Act had no applicability to the Ayurvedic preparations  in question.  Drugs Control and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (enacted  by  the Federal Legislature), the Drugs (Control)  Act, 1950,   the  Spirituous  Preparations   (Inter-state  Trade   and Commerce)   Control   Act,  1955,   the  Medicinal   and   Toilet Preparations  (Excise  Duty)  Act, 1955 and the  Delhi  Municipal Corporation  Act,  1957  collectively cover the entire  field  of legislation  in  respect of which the ISP Rules were  framed  (as amended).   The  Delhi  High  Court extensively  dealt  with  the relevant   provisions  contained  in   the  Central   legislation including the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Drugs Control and Cosmetics  Act,  1940  and held :  The effect of  notifying  the impugned  drugs as intoxicants and bringing them within the ambit of  the  Excise Act and the ISP Rules is to regulate and  control the  transportation and sale of the said drugs.  These drugs  may be  medicinal  but they are capable of and are being misused  and consumed  as  beverages as they have alcohol content of  over  25 degree  proof.  The sale of such medicinal drugs if  manufactured properly and if not misbranded, spurious or adulterated would not come  within the ambit of Chapter IV-A and Section 33 EEC of  the 1940  Act  but  the sale of same can be controlled  or  regulated under  the ISP Rules.  The provisions of Chapter IV-A of the 1940 Act  do  not, to our mind, overlap any of the provisions  of  the Punjab  Excise Act or the ISP Rules.  The two sets of  provisions operate  in  different  spheres and are  intended  for  different purposes.

     Examining  the  issue from an alternative angle, the  Delhi High  Court  further  held that even if it be  assumed  that  the provisions  of  the 1940 Act do overlap or relate to some of  the topics  referred to in Excise Act and the ISP Rules, Section 2 of the  1940 Act specifically states that the provisions of the  Act shall  be  in addition to and not in derogation to any other  law for  the  time being in force.  Referring to the decision of  the A.P.   High Court in M/s.  Indian C & P Works Vs.  State of A.P., AIR  1964 A.P.  430 approved by the Supreme Court in Indian C & P Works  Vs.  State of A.P.& Ors., AIR 1966 SC 713, and the Supreme Court  decisions  in M.B.S.  Oushadhalaya & Ors.  Vs.   Union  of India  &  Ors.,  AIR  1963 SC  622,  Southern  Pharmaceuticals  & Chemicals  Trichur & Ors.  Vs.  State of Kerala & Ors., AIR  1981 SC  1863, the Delhi High Court held that the Central legislations under reference did not prevent the State Legislature from making a  law  under  Entry 8 of List II of the  Seventh  Schedule  with respect  to  intoxicating  liquor.   The Central  and  the  State legislations  operated  in two different and distinct fields  and though  the Central Act and the Rules to some extent trench  upon the  field reserved to the State Legislature but that was  merely incidental  to  the main purpose and the competence of the  State Legislature  to  enact  the provision was not  jeopardised.   The Delhi High Court also held, that in the matter of making rules or detailed  provisions  to  achieve  the object and  purpose  of  a legislation,  there may be some provisions seemingly  overlapping

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

or encroaching upon the forbidden field but that does not warrant the  striking down of the State legislation as ultra vires.   The Delhi  High Court noted that State of Bombay Vs.  F.N.   Balsara, (1951)  SCR  682 was referred to in Synthetics & Chemicals  Ltd.& Ors.  Vs.  State of U.P.  & Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 109 and both these decisions  were placed before the Supreme Court in Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali Ltd.  Vs.  State of Gujarat & Anr., JT 1992 (1) SC 597 and therein this court has observed that in  spite  of the Central legislations including  Industrial  and Regulation Act, the power of the State Government was still saved to  legislate in respect of alcohol so as to lay down regulations to  ensure that non- potable alcohol is not diverted and  misused as  a  substitute  for potable alcohol and also if the  State  is rendering  any  service, as distinct from its claim of  so-called grant  of  privilege, it may charge fees based on quid  pro  quo. The  Delhi High Court concluded that under Entry 8 of List II  it is  the State Legislature which has been given power to legislate in  respect of intoxicating liquors even if the said liquors  are regarded  as  medicines.  Medicinal products may also fall  under Entry  19  of  List  III dealing with the subject  of  drugs  and poisons which would give both the Parliament as well as the State Legislature  the field to enact laws.  For the purpose of excise, the  medicinal product containing liquor may be covered by  Entry 84  of List I but otherwise it is the State Government which will have  power under Entry 8 of List II to legislate with regard  to medicinal product which can be termed as liquor.  The decision of Rajasthan  High  Court, which is impugned in these  appeals,  was also  cited before Delhi High Court and Delhi High Court  refused to  follow  Rajasthan High Court decision by observing  that  the attention  of  the  Rajasthan  High Court was not  drawn  to  the decision  of  the  Supreme  Court in  Southern  Pharmaceutical  & Chemicals case (supra).

     Though,  we  heard the learned counsel for the  parties  at length  but  at the end of the hearing we have formed an  opinion that  although  the  decision of Rajasthan High Court,  which  is impugned  before us, cannot be sustained, yet we are not required to  express any final opinion on the issues arising for  decision in  these appeals, because the decision is only academic in  view of  subsequent  events and in the light of facts admitted at  the Bar as also for other reasons to be stated hereinafter.

     Shri  S.K.   Jain,  the learned counsel for  the  State  of Rajasthan  has  placed strong lines on the decision of  3-Judges Bench  of this court in State of A.P.  and Ors.  Vs.  Mcdowell  & Co.   and  Ors.,  (1996) 3 SCC 709, wherein this court  has  held referring  to all those relevant entries from the three Schedules in  Seventh  Schedule  of  the   Constitution  which  are   under consideration   before  us  that  the   ambit  and  scope  of   a constitutional  entry  cannot  be determined by  reference  to  a Parliamentary  enactment.   Entry  8 in List II  speaks  of  only intoxicating liquors and does not, therefore, apply to or take in liquors  which  do not fall within the  expression  intoxicating liquors.   The power to make a law with respect to  manufacture, production,  consumption and sale et al of intoxicating liquor is that  of  the  State alone.  The State Legislature  is  perfectly competent  to  make  a  law   prohibiting  the  manufacture   and production  ___ in addition to sale, possession and transport ___ of intoxicating liquors, by reference to Entry 8, 6 and 1 in List II  of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution read with Article 47  thereof.   Once  the impugned enactment is  within  the  four corners  of  these  entries,  no Central law  whether  made  with reference  to an entry in List I or with reference to an entry in List  III  can affect the validity of such State enactment.   The argument  of  occupied  field is totally out of place in  such  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

context.   If  a  particular  matter   is  within  the  exclusive competence  of  the  State  Legislature, i.e., in  List  II  that represents the prohibited field for the Union.  Similarly, if any matter  is  within  the  exclusive competence of  the  Union,  it becomes  a  prohibited  field  for the States.   The  concept  of occupied  field is really relevant in the case of laws made  with reference  to  entries in List III.  In other words,  whenever  a piece  of  legislation  is  said to  be  beyond  the  legislative competence  of  a State Legislature, what one must do is to  find out,  by  applying the rule of pith and substance,  whether  that legislation  falls  within any of the entries in List II.  If  it does,  no further question arises;  the attack upon the ground of legislative  competence  shall  fail.  In other  words,  once  an enactment, in pith and substance, is relatable to Entry 8 in List II  or  for that matter any other entry in List II,  Article  246 cannot  be  brought in to yet hold that State Legislature is  not competent to enact that law.

     The judgment under appeal rendered by State of Rajasthan is liable  to be set aside mainly for two reasons.  Firstly, it does not  take  notice  of  the decision of  this  court  in  Southern Pharmaceutical & Chemicals case [AIR 1981 SC 1863].  Secondly, it proceeds  upon  wrong  premises that once a field is  covered  by Central  Legislation  referable  to List I, the  power  of  State Government  to legislate in the filed covered by an entry in List II  is  taken away without dealing with the doctrine of pith  and substance  and by ignoring the well settled position of law  that the  doctrine of covered field has to be applied only to  entries in List III.  This is the position of law settled by three-judges Bench decision in Mc.Dowell & Co.s case (supra).

     In  spite  of  forming an opinion that the  judgment  under appeal does not correctly decide the issues raised therein and is therefore liable to be set aside, we are still not expressing any final  opinion on the issues under consideration for the  reasons which  we  hasten  to  state.  Firstly,  the  decision  has  been rendered  academic only in view of subsequent events and admitted facts.   It  was  pointed out during the course of  hearing  that w.e.f.   26.6.1995,  Part xix __ Standards of Ayurvedic,  Siddha and  Unani  Drugs  has been added in the text of the  Drugs  and Cosmetics  Rules,  1945 by the Central Government by  GSR  519(E) dated  26.6.1995,  during the pendency of these appeals,  whereby manufacture,  sale or distribution of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs containing more than 12% alcohol have been prohibited.  The learned  counsel  for the respondents admitted that they are  not now  manufacturing  any medicine or drugs which may  violate  the provisions  of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act & Rules and  therefore there  is  no product manufactured by the respondents  before  us which  may  attract the applicability of the impugned  rules  and notifications  which deal with spirituous preparations containing more  than 20% proof alcohol and hence any product of theirs  may not   run   the  risk  of   being  termed   liquor   attracting applicability  of Rajasthan ISP Rules.  Secondly, the correctness of decision in Balsaras case was doubted not only in Synthetics case  but  also in M/s.  Dabur India Ltd.  & Anr.  Vs.  State  of U.P.   & Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 264, wherein this court has expressed an  opinion  that for the effectiveness of prohibition the  State must  be  held  to have the power to regulate the  possession  or consumption   of   such     medicinal   preparations   containing comparatively high percentage of alcohol under the Excise Act and has,  therefore,  referred the case to Constitution  Bench.   The matter  is  awaiting  hearing  by the  Constitution  Bench.   The decision  by the Constitution Bench shall be the law of the land. Even  if we were to decide the question, our opinion shall always be  subject to the law to be declared by the Constitution  Bench.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

In  any  case  we are finding it unnecessary to enter  into  that exercise  in the facts and circumstances of the cases before  us. Thirdly,  all  the learned counsel for the respondents  submitted during  the  course of hearing that their principal  anxiety  was that  the  impugned  rules and notification,  if  sustained,  are liable  to entail heavy financial burden on the respondents in as much  as  the State of Rajasthan may proceed to levy and  recover excise duty or countervailing duty on their products manufactured or brought for sale in the State of Rajasthan under Section 28 of Rajasthan  Excise  Act.  In our opinion, such an apprehension  is premature  and unfounded.  This we say for two reasons.  Firstly, Rule  25  of Rajasthan ISP Rules provides that in the  matter  of duty  to be paid on intoxicating spirituous preparations and  not leviable under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duty) Act, 1955, the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 shall apply;   in all other matters, not specified in these rules,  the provisions  of  Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 shall apply  mutatis mutandis.   The rule takes care of the respondents  apprehension. Secondly,  the writ petitions were filed soon after the  issuance of  the impugned notifications.  It was conceded at the Bar  that till  the date of the filing of the writ petitions and even  till the  date  of hearing before us, the State of Rajasthan  had  not taken  any steps for levy, much less for recovery, of and had not raised  any  demand on account of excise duty  or  countervailing duty from any of the respondents.  We need not adjudicate upon an issue  which  has not even actually arisen.  By way  of  abundant caution, we may state that we need not be taken to have expressed any  opinion  on the correctness or otherwise of the decision  of the  Delhi  High  Court  in M/s.  Dabur India  Ltd.   Vs.   Delhi Administration  &  Ors.   (CW No.  1267 of 1987 decided  on  26th March,  1992)  as no appeal has been filed against that  decision before  this  court and for the purpose of present case  we  have formed  an opinion that the controversy was rendered academic not calling for any expression of final opinion.

     However,  in view of the fact that Division Bench  decision of  Rajasthan High Court was holding the field till this day,  we direct  that none of the respondents (i.e.  the writ  petitioners before the Rajasthan High Court) and no person similarly situated shall  be liable to be prosecuted before a criminal court for  an offence  under Rajasthan Excise Act, 1956 read with Rajasthan ISP Rules  and/or notification dated 8.5.1990 for any act or omission done  during the period the decision under appeal was holding the field.

     All  the appeals be treated as disposed of in the abovesaid terms.  No order as to the costs.@@         JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ