https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154020 Delegated legislation under the Abkari Act was valid only so far as it carried out the Act's legislative policy and statutory purpose. Although the Act permitted regulation of intoxicating liquor and the imposition of licence conditions, the Supreme Court held that Rules 4(2) and 9(10)(b) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 went beyond that power because they sought to implement a rehabilitation policy for displaced arrack workers, a subject not covered by the Act. The Court rejected reliance on other labour and contract statutes and held that the State could not impose employment obligations on unwilling toddy-shop licence holders through subordinate legislation. Rule 4(2) was also held inseverable. The rules were therefore ultra vires and unconstitutional. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154020 Delegated legislation under the Abkari Act was valid only so far as it carried out the Act's legislative policy and statutory purpose. Although the Act permitted regulation of intoxicating liquor and the imposition of licence conditions, the Supreme Court held that Rules 4(2) and 9(10)(b) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 went beyond that power because they sought to implement a rehabilitation policy for displaced arrack workers, a subject not covered by the Act. The Court rejected reliance on other labour and contract statutes and held that the State could not impose employment obligations on unwilling toddy-shop licence holders through subordinate legislation. Rule 4(2) was also held inseverable. The rules were therefore ultra vires and unconstitutional. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154020