Age-based liquor permit restrictions upheld as valid regulation under prohibition law and constitutional scrutiny.

The amended liquor permit rules were upheld as a valid exercise of regulatory power under the Prohibition Act, 1937. The High Court noted that the Act empowered the Government to regulate permits and exemptions, and that replacing a single medical officer with a medical board and raising the minimum age for applicants did not depart from the statutory scheme. The age-based restriction was treated as a reasonable classification linked to prohibition policy and public health, and the medicinal exemption was held not to confer an enforceable right to consume liquor. The challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended liquor permit rules, particularly the restriction that only persons aged 45 years and above may apply and the requirement of examination by a medical board, were ultra vires the Prohibition Act, 1937. (ii) Whether the amended rules violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the amended liquor permit rules, particularly the restriction that only persons aged 45 years and above may apply and the requirement of examination by a medical board, were ultra vires the Prohibition Act, 1937.

Analysis: The statutory scheme vested the Government with power to regulate the grant of permits and licences under Section 54 of the Prohibition Act, 1937, while Section 20 authorised permits for personal consumption subject to the Act and the rules. The earlier rules had already regulated eligibility and medical examination, and the 1977 amendment only altered the machinery by substituting a medical board for a single medical officer and by raising the minimum age for applicants. Since the Act itself did not confer an absolute right on all persons to obtain a permit, and left the selection of eligible persons and the conditions of grant to the rule-making authority, the amendments were treated as an exercise of regulatory power within the statutory framework rather than a departure from it.

Conclusion: The amended rules were not ultra vires the Prohibition Act, 1937.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended rules violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court treated liquor control as part of the regulation of a noxious trade, where wider restrictions are permissible in light of the State's prohibition policy and Article 47 of the Constitution of India. The exemption for medicinal grounds was held not to create an enforceable right to consume liquor, and the rule-making authority could restrict that exemption to a class of persons reasonably thought to need it. The age classification was upheld because age was considered relevant to the object of enforcing prohibition and limiting permits to persons likely to suffer health consequences from abrupt withdrawal. The Court also held that the rule did not amount to arbitrary or unguided delegation, because the legislative policy and guiding principles were already supplied by the Act.

Conclusion: The amended rules did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the amended permit rules failed in substance, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prohibition statute confers regulatory discretion on the Government to grant exemptions and permits, the rule-making authority may lawfully narrow eligibility and prescribe stricter conditions, including age-based classification, so long as the rules remain within the statutory policy and bear a reasonable nexus to the object of the legislation.

---