https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287352 A State law on intoxicating drugs, amended with Presidential assent under Article 254(2), was not displaced by the Central Drugs Act, 1940 because the Central statute stated that its provisions were in addition to other laws in force. The notification treating chloral hydrate as an intoxicating drug was upheld as a valid exercise of statutory power under the State Act, and the levy of a licence fee on its manufacture was found intra vires. The regulatory restriction was also sustained as a reasonable measure in the interests of the general public, so no infringement of Article 19 was made out and the writ petition failed. en-us Sat, 30 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:55:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287352 A State law on intoxicating drugs, amended with Presidential assent under Article 254(2), was not displaced by the Central Drugs Act, 1940 because the Central statute stated that its provisions were in addition to other laws in force. The notification treating chloral hydrate as an intoxicating drug was upheld as a valid exercise of statutory power under the State Act, and the levy of a licence fee on its manufacture was found intra vires. The regulatory restriction was also sustained as a reasonable measure in the interests of the general public, so no infringement of Article 19 was made out and the writ petition failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 30 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287352