Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether citizens have a fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor and whether the State can grant the right or privilege to sell liquor by public auction under the excise laws.
Analysis: The governing excise statutes treated intoxicating liquor as a special category subject to strict State control over import, export, transport, manufacture, possession and sale. The legislative scheme authorised the State to grant an exclusive privilege of sale by lease or licence and to determine the consideration by auction. The Court applied earlier authorities holding that there is no inherent right to trade in intoxicating liquor, that the trade is a subject of police regulation, and that the State may even prohibit it altogether in the interests of public morality and public health. The auction price was treated as consideration for the grant of the privilege and not as a tax or excise duty.
Conclusion: The citizens had no fundamental right to insist on carrying on liquor trade free from the statutory controls, and the State was entitled to auction licences and leases for the sale of liquor.
Final Conclusion: The State's auction-based grant of liquor vending rights was upheld and the challenge to the notifications and licence policy failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Trade in intoxicating liquor is not an absolute fundamental right but a regulated privilege subject to the State's power to prohibit, control and grant exclusive rights by auction or lease for public welfare and revenue.