<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (7) TMI 239 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192856</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:07:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=475525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (7) TMI 239 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192856</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>