(1.) This appeal, by specil leave, is directed against a judgment of the Kerala High Court by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants who are manufacturers of medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol and upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 12A, 12B, 14 (e) and (f) and 68A of the Abkari Act, 1077 (1 of 1077) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), introduced by the Abkari (Amendment) Act, 1967 (10 of 1967), and Rr. 13 and 16 of the Kerala Rectified Spirit Rules, 1972. The main question in the appeal is as to the legislative competence of the State to enact a law relating to medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol under Entry 8, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
(2.) The appellants, by virtue of a licence in Form 25 granted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and a licence in Form L1 granted under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') are entitled to manufacture the drugs specified therein. They filed a writ petition in the High Court complaining that they were entitled to the supply of alcohol free of duty for the manufacture of their medicinal and toilet preparations under R. 21 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Rules'), and R. 8 of the Kerala Rectified Spirit Rules, 1972, and challenged the validity of the impugned provisions mainly on the ground that the State Legislature has no power to enact the law relating to medicinal and toilet preparations as the topic of legislation is within the exclusive domain of Parliament under Entry. 84, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The High Court held that there was no conflict between the impugned provisions and the Central law as they dealt with different subjects.
(3.) The impugned provisions, as introduced by the Abkari (Amendment) Act, 1967, in so far as they are relevant, are as follows.