https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281535 Section 139(1)(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was upheld because the Legislature had already fixed the policy of prohibition, leaving only the time, area and manner of enforcement to the executive; the Court treated this as valid conditional legislation supported by Article 47 and the Act's scheme. Section 56 was also upheld, as the power to cancel licences was read as confined to causes connected with prohibition enforcement and not as arbitrary discretion. The notification declaring Gadchiroli a dry district, and the consequential cancellation of licences and permits, were held intra vires and constitutionally valid; trade in intoxicants was not treated as a protected fundamental right. No prior hearing was required because the notification was quasi-legislative and the cancellations followed the statutory scheme. en-us Fri, 26 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jun 2019 13:08:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281535 Section 139(1)(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was upheld because the Legislature had already fixed the policy of prohibition, leaving only the time, area and manner of enforcement to the executive; the Court treated this as valid conditional legislation supported by Article 47 and the Act's scheme. Section 56 was also upheld, as the power to cancel licences was read as confined to causes connected with prohibition enforcement and not as arbitrary discretion. The notification declaring Gadchiroli a dry district, and the consequential cancellation of licences and permits, were held intra vires and constitutionally valid; trade in intoxicants was not treated as a protected fundamental right. No prior hearing was required because the notification was quasi-legislative and the cancellations followed the statutory scheme. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281535