- (1.) (For himself and on behalf of V. N. Khare, C.J.I.). These appeals were filed by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent of various divisions and districts of Andhra Pradesh against the final judgment dated 10-1-2003 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 19186 and 21096 of 2002 etc. batch wherein the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein, who are having licences for selling toddy at their respective shops, striking down the amended Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A.P. Excise Rules') of its retrospective effect. The High Court held it as prospective in its operation and quashed the suspension of licenses and show-cause notices issued for cancellation with regard to the various toddy shops of the respondents in this batch of appeals.
(2.) The facts leading to these appeals being practically are the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment by consent of parties.
(3.) The short facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under :- The respondents herein are all members of Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies. On 26-8-2002, 42 shops were raided out of which 29 shops were found to contain no adulterated toddy on the spot and the F.I.Rs. were registered. As the Government Laboratories are not well equipped with sophisticated technology for detecting adulteration, the concerned excise officials sought permission of the trial Court for sending the samples to the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology and Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Hyderabad for chemical analysis. The trial Court permitted and accordingly the samples were sent to the above laboratories for chemical analysis. The above laboratories, after chemical analysis, sent their reports stating that the toddy samples contain Alprazolam, which substance is injurious to health. After receipt of the above reports, the concerned Prohibition and Excise officials, by their various proceedings, suspended licences of the respondents herein. The respondents filed various writ petitions challenging the suspension order before the High Court and contended that the instant chemical analysis at the time of seizure does not disclose any adulteration and sending the samples to the independent laboratories other than the Government laboratories is violative of Rule 24 of the A.P. Excise Rules. Counter-affidavits and additional counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of the appellants herein before the High Court explaining the legal and factual position. The Division Bench of the High Court by its common judgment, dated 10-1-2003 while upholding the amendment of Rule 24 struck down the same with regard to giving retrospective effect and quashed the suspension of the licences and show-cause notices for cancellation and allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein accordingly. The appellants herein filed Review Petition before the High Court seeking review of the said order which was also dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred all the above appeals questioning the correctness and legality of the order impugned in these appeals. The High Court, while allowing the writ petitions, has observed thus : "The learned senior counsel Mr. S. Rama-chandra Rao further submitted at the bar that the amended rule cannot have a retrospective effect. It was also pointed out that the amendment was made on 21-11-2002 by way of subordinate legislation and the subordinate legislation has no retrospective effect and, therefore, the said amended rule has to be struck down. While rebutting the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Advocate-General submitted at the bar that the Government do not have a laboratory having sophisticated machinery and equipment to analysis the toddy so as to ascertain whether there is any type of adulteration or not, which is injurious to the health of the public at large and therefore, the Government was constrained to issue the aforesaid G.O. So that the Government officers can send the sample drawn to the independent laboratory having sophisticated machinery and equipment. This was done to protect the health of the public at large and, therefore, it cannot be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary. We agree with the submission made by the learned Advocate-General that there may be laudable intention on the part of the Government to protect the health of the public at large those who were interested in consuming toddy. It being a subordinate legislation, it cannot have retrospective effect. The learned counsel Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao further submitted that the intention of taking the sample as laid down under the Act and sending the same to the Government Laboratory is not only the procedural aspect as submitted by the Advocate-General but it is a substantive one as well as procedural law as contained in the Excise Act. We are not prepared to hold that the amended rule is violative of any article. It was done with a laudable object of protecting the health of the public at large. But it cannot have a retrospective effect. Therefore, in our considered view that the suspension of licences and issuing show cause notices etc., for cancelling the licenses are only illegal and arbitrary and any other action taken by the respondents against the petitioners under the A.P. Excise Act is also illegal and arbitrary in the present situation.";