https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192496 Liquor traffic was treated as res extra commercium, so no enforceable fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(g), 301 or 304 attached to dealing in intoxicants, and the State's exclusive distributorship scheme was upheld on that basis. The amended excise rules were also held to fall within the Karnataka Excise Act's wide rule-making power, which authorised channelisation of the State's liquor privilege; the scheme was not arbitrary under Article 14. Existing licencees had only a statutory privilege, not a vested property right under Article 300-A, and no Article 47 or postponement right was recognised. The laying requirement was procedural, not a condition precedent, and the President's Rule objection failed. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jun 2017 11:07:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192496 Liquor traffic was treated as res extra commercium, so no enforceable fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(g), 301 or 304 attached to dealing in intoxicants, and the State's exclusive distributorship scheme was upheld on that basis. The amended excise rules were also held to fall within the Karnataka Excise Act's wide rule-making power, which authorised channelisation of the State's liquor privilege; the scheme was not arbitrary under Article 14. Existing licencees had only a statutory privilege, not a vested property right under Article 300-A, and no Article 47 or postponement right was recognised. The laying requirement was procedural, not a condition precedent, and the President's Rule objection failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192496