BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision by Mahaveer Prashad proprietor of Metro Hotel and Restaurant, Ganganagar against his conviction under sec. 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, (Act No. II of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) ON 22nd January, 1959, the Government of Rajasthan in pursuance of the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 19 of the Act issued the following Notification No. F. 3(II)SR/50 dated 20/30th June, 1951 : "The Government of Rajasthan hereby directs that notwithstanding any thing contained in subSecs. (1), (2) and (3) of the said section, no person shall take into or keep upon, any premises used as restaurant in the whole of the State of Rajastnan except Abu area any quantity of liquor unless such premises have been licensed for the consumption of liquor thereon under the said Act or Rules made thereunder. Explanation - "Restaurant" means any place to which the public are admitted for the consumption of food or drink, for consideration." Sec. 19 of the Act prohibits possession of excisable articles in excess of the quantity prescribed by the State Government, and is as follows : "19. Possession of excisable article in excess of the quantity Prescribed by the Government prohibited except under permission - (1) No person not being licensed to manufacture, cultivate collector sell any excisable article shall have in his possession any quantity of such article in case of such quantity as the Government has, under sec. 5, declared to be the limit of sale by retail except under a permit granted by the Excise Commissioner (or by an Excise Officer duty empowered) in that behalf. (2) Sub-sec.(1) shall not extend to - (a) any foreign liquor (other than denatured spirit) in the possession of any common carrier of warehouse man as such, or (b) any foreign liquor which has been purchased by any person for his bonafide private consumption and not for sale. (3) A licenced vendor shall not have in his possession at anyplace other than that authorised by his licence any quanity of any excisable article in excess of such quantity as the Government has under sec. 5 declared to be the limit of sale by retail except under a permit granted by the Excise Commissioner (or by an Excise Officer duly empowered) in that behalf. (4) Notwithstanding any thing contained in the foregoing sub-section the Government may by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette prohibit or restrict the possession by any person or class of persons, or subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the notification, by all persons in Rajasthan or any specified area or areas thereof of any excisable articles either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it may prescribe." By virtue of sub-sec. (4) the State Government is empowered to prohibit or restrict possession of any excisable articles either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it prescribes in these parts of the State of Rajasthan where the Act extends or any specified area or areas thereof by any person or class of persons or by all persons subject to such exception as may be specified in the notification. By the notification dated 22nd January, 1959 the State of Rajasthan prohibited the taking into or keeping upon, any premises used as restaurant in the whole of the State of Rajasthan except Abu area any quantity of liquor unless such premises have been licensed for the consumption of liquor thereon under the Act or rules made thereunder. It is not in dispute that some bottles of liquor were recovered from the restaurant of the petitioner. The contention however, is that the above mentioned notification is ultra vires of the Rajasthan Government, inasmuch as the premises where the liquor is alleged to have been found do not come within any specified area or areas under sec. 19(4) of the Act. It is alleged that what the notification does is to prohibit the taking of liquor into a class of premises generally which premises are being used for the purpose of the consumption of food or drink by the public for consideration. It is on this ground that the conviction of petitioner is sought to be set aside. In support of the argument reference was made to Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(l). In my view there is no force in the contention. In the case referred to by the learned counsel! their Lordships of the Supreme Court were construing the words "Local area" as used in Entry 52 of the State List in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Sec. 3 of the U. P. Sugar Cane Act, 1956 empowered the State Government to impose a cess not exceeding -/4/- per maund on the entry of sugarcane into an area specified in such notification for consumption, use or sale therein. It was urged before the Supreme Court that the law as enacted in sec. 3 was invalid and it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and a question arose whether the "premises of factory" is a local area within the meaning of the words used in Entry 52, and it was held that : "The proper meaning to be attached to the words 'Local area' in entry 52 of the State list of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution (when the area is a part of the State imposing the law) is an area administered by a local body board, a union board, a panchayat or the like. The premises of a factory is therefore, not a local area." It was argued in that case that local area in entry 52 should be taken to mean any part of the State in any place therein. Their Lordships pointed out the obvious fallacy of the argument that it drew no distinction between the word 'area' and the phrase 'local area". This decision is of no help to the petitioner because in sec. 19(4) the words used are "any specified area or areas thereof" and the word 'area' is not synonymous with 'local area'. The word 'area' has not been defined in the Act. It has therefore to be understood in its popular sense. According to Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary the meaning of the word 'area' is "any space, surface or enclosed space, sunken space alongside the basement of a building." Therefore, any plain surface of any space within the four walls of a building would be 'area' according to the above dictionary meaning. The question therefore, is whether a restaurant can be said to be a 'specified area' or not within the meaning of sec 19(4) of the Act. The suggestion is that there can be no specification of an 'area' unless the notification mentions or names any particular restaurant, street, town or any part of the State. Now it is obvious that an area can be specified by its name or by its geographical limits or in any other way. In the present case the notification gives the definition of restaurant as a place used for the purpose of the consumption food or drink by the public for consideration. This in my view is quite sufficient to particularise the area and all the restaurants situated in the whole of the State of Rajasthan except Abu area are thus specified areas within the meaning of sec. 19(4) of the Act. I am therefore, of the view that the notification which prohibits the keeping of liquor in restaurants in the whole of the State of Rajasthan is not ultra vires of the State Government. The revision has therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed.;