Delegated legislation can validly add licence restrictions where earlier excise rules do not create a vested right.

A government excise measure issued under enabling provisions and published in the official gazette can operate as delegated legislation, even if styled as an order, and therefore have the force of a subordinate rule. The later restriction barring an existing licence-holder from obtaining a second licence was held consistent with the 1993 Rules and Rule 17, because those rules regulated eligibility to apply and did not freeze future rule-making power or create a vested right. The additional restriction was treated as a valid supplement to the earlier framework and as consistent with public policy in the trade of intoxicants.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 2000 excise order, though styled as an order, was validly issued in exercise of delegated legislative power under the Excise Act and had the force of subordinate legislation; (ii) whether the restriction in the 2000 order, barring grant of a second licence to an existing licence-holder, was inconsistent with the 1993 Rules or overridden by Rule 17.

Issue (i): Whether the 2000 excise order was valid delegated legislation.

Analysis: The title used by the Government was not conclusive. The order expressly traced its authority to the enabling provisions of the Excise Act, was issued in the manner required for delegated legislation, and was published in the official gazette. Its content and object showed that it operated within the field of rule-making entrusted to the State Government. It was therefore not a mere executive instruction but an instrument having the force of a rule made under delegated power.

Conclusion: The 2000 order was validly made as delegated legislation and could not be treated as an inferior executive order.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2000 order was inconsistent with the 1993 Rules or barred by Rule 17.

Analysis: Rule 17 could not be read as freezing the Government's future rule-making power. The 2000 order did not destroy any vested right, because the 1993 Rules merely regulated eligibility to apply for a licence. The later order only imposed an additional restriction on holding more than one licence, which supplemented rather than contradicted the earlier rules. The restriction also accorded with public policy in a trade involving intoxicants.

Conclusion: The restriction in the 2000 order was valid and not displaced by the 1993 Rules or Rule 17.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unsustainable. The State's appeal succeeded, while the respondents were granted only the limited direction to have their applications considered on surrender of their existing licences and subject to other legal requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: A government measure issued within delegated legislative power, and complying with the prescribed publication and procedural requirements, has the force of subordinate legislation and may impose additional eligibility restrictions that are not inconsistent with the earlier rules or create no vested right.

---