Liquor trade regulation upheld as weekly dry days and closure hours were found constitutionally permissible and properly guided.

The Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was treated as a regulatory, not merely fiscal, scheme for controlling manufacture, sale and consumption of intoxicants. Section 59(f)(v) and rule 37, which authorised closure of liquor shops on specified days and hours, were upheld because the Act's policy and framework supplied adequate guidance and confined the delegation to temperance and public welfare. The restriction was also held constitutionally permissible under Articles 14 and 19, since liquor trade stands on a different footing from ordinary trade and weekly dry days are not unreasonable merely because they limit sales. The discrimination challenge failed once the State applied the same rule to its own tourism establishments.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 59(f)(v) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and rule 37 regulating the days and hours of closure of liquor shops were invalid for want of guidelines, excessive delegation, or as an unreasonable and arbitrary restriction on trade in intoxicants under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power to regulate liquor trade was examined in the light of the statutory scheme, the nature of intoxicants, and the State's obligation to advance temperance and public welfare. The Act was found to be not merely fiscal but regulatory, with section 58 and the other provisions supplying the policy and framework for control over manufacture, sale, and consumption of liquor. On that scheme, the authority to fix days and hours of closure was held to be confined by the object of moderation and social welfare, and not an open-ended or unguided delegation. The Court also held that restrictions on liquor trade stand on a different footing from ordinary trades because of the inherently harmful character of intoxicants, so the impugned restriction was not unreasonable merely because it imposed weekly dry days. The challenge based on arbitrariness and discrimination also failed once the State undertook to apply the same rule to its own tourism establishments.

Conclusion: Section 59(f)(v) and rule 37 were upheld as valid, and the restriction on liquor sales on specified days was held to be reasonable and constitutionally permissible.

---