V. Ramaswami, J. - (1.) In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Poisons Act, 1919. (1 2 of 1919) (hereinafter called'the Act). The grounds on which the vires of the provisions is attacked are that the section gives an unguided, unchannllized and arbitrary power to the State Government to include any substance as poison for the purpose of restriction to be imposed on the possession for sale and sale of the same. It was further contended that the restriction imposed on possession for sale and sale were not reasonable restrictions. The petitioner's have also taken the plea that though the Act is a Central enactment it is possible of unjust and unjustified discriminatory application as it is left to each State Government to determine what substance they would include as poison and regulated and the decision in one State to include the substance as poison is not automatically made applicable to the other States.
(2.) The object of the enactment is to regulate the possession for sale and the sale whether wholesale or retail of poisons and the importation of the same. In other words, it is intended to control over the traffic in poisons. Though the original enactment, the Poisons Act, 1904 was restricted, it was applicable.to white arsenic, the Poisons Act, 1919 expanded its provisions and enabled State Government to declare any substance as poison for the purposes of the Act by a notification under the Act or the rules made under the Act.
(3.) In exercise of this power by the Notification No. F.10/ . 44/72-fin. (G) dated 7-81973 the Lt. Governor of Delhi amended the Delhi Poisons Rules, 1926 (hereinafter called the Rules) by including to the list of substances included in the Rules as "Poisons" "the substance commonly known as 'thinner' containing spirit and other soluble material such as shellac in which the percentage of such soluble material does not exceed 30% as poison and consequential amendment, of Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules. It was the contention of the petitioners before the authorities that their "unit is manufacturing only those thinners which contain only liquid substance, like as ecotone, ethyl acetate SDS etc. and not all solubles". According to them, therefore, the substance manufactured by them would not come within the amended Rules. Though in the beginning the petitioners were contending that in substance manufactured by them did not come within Rule 2 (x)(2) and there was some correspondence in this regard, when the competent authority held that the substance manufactured by the petitioners would come within the definition of thinner'as contained in Rule 2 (x)(2) of the Rules, the petitioners did not question the finding on any material. Before us also they had not placed any material to show that the finding was wrong or that the substance would not come within Rule 2 (x) (2). In fact the learned counsel argued the petition on the basis that the petitioners are a manufacturer of 'thinner'within Rule 2 (x)(2) which has been declared as poison for purposes of the Act.;