B KRISHNA BHAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-3-61
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 19,1990

B KRISHNA BHAT Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

A P DALIT MAHA SABHA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1999-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
A P DALIT MAHASABHA VS. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1999-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD VS. B H E L [LAWS(APH)-2000-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
MALA BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1992-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
ADAM B CHAKI VS. UNION OF INDIA & 5 [LAWS(GJH)-2012-1-208] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTIYA YUVA SHAKTI KALYANAM SAMITI THRU. MEMBER MURTAZA ALI VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU. CHIEF SECY. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA SHARMA W/O SHRI SANJAY SHARMA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
HEM RAJ VS. STATE OF HP [LAWS(HPH)-2020-1-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be "a public spirited individual". He further claims to be a person aggrieved and seeks to assail the constitutional validity of the State of Karnataka and the Union of India not promoting, enforcing and carrying out the policy of prohibition i. e. manufacturing, sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs throughout the country - India - Bharat, and also assails the constitutional validity of sub-clause (b) of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Excise (Sales of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 as amended by the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) (Amendment) Rules, 1989 which came into force on 10/09/1989.
(2.)The petitioner refers to the Preamble to the Constitution which, according to him, explains the general purpose behind the general provisions of the Constitution. He refers to Mahatama Gandhi and his commitment to prohibition. According to the petitioner, manufacture, sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs have become a stumbling block and a dangerous dragon to the progress and stability of the nation as a whole. The petitioner states that unless this dragon is completely destroyed the country could never think of achieving the objects of the Constitution and justice social, economic and political. People are flouting the laws of this country, therefore, the petitioner objects that the State should take upon itself the business of selling liquors. He has asserted that the State of Karnataka instead of bringing total prohibition in the State, has evinced interest in taking up the responsibility of selling liquors to the general public. Hence, it is bad and contrary to the Constitution, and he challenges the amendment which prescribes the licence for sale shall be issued to only such company owned or controlled by the State government as the State government may specify. According to the petitioner, such a rule is unconstitutional. He draws our attention to Article 47 of the Constitution of India which indicates directive principles.
(3.)In the aforesaid view of the matter he claims that this court should direct the Union of India and other State governments to enforce the policy of total prohibition throughout the country including the State of Karnataka and to impose restrictions on manufacture, sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks and to declare Rule 3 of these Rules as void and unconstitutional.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.