ARUNA SUGARS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutionality of Section 6 -A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act("the TNP Act" in short) and the Tamil Nadu Molasses Control and Regulation Rules, 1958("State Rules" in short). In some writ petitions, the prayer sought for is for quashing of orders passed in exercise of the powers under the Act or the Rules and for forbearance from exercising such powers.

(2.) THE petitioners in W.P. Nos.1921, 2097 and 5514 to 5516 of 1981, manufacture sugar. Under the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 ("the IDR Act" in short) it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the industries specified in the First Schedule. Sugar has been included in serial No. 25 and fermentation Industry in Serial No. 26 in the Schedule. In W.P.Nos.3568 and 6809 of 1988, the writ petitioner manufactures cattle feed. Molasses is a by -product in manufacture of sugar and used in the manufacture of cattle feed. So in both the cases the manufacture necessarily involves possession/ transport/ sale of molasses. The power to legislate in respect of the controlled industries vests with the Central Government traceable to Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, and the Central Government has also framed the Molasses Control Order, 1961 ("Central Order" in short) under Section 18 -G of the I.D.R Act. According to the petitioners, the State Rules encroach into the field occupied by the Central Legislature. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. Further, since Molasses is not an intoxicating liquor, State cannot assert its legislative competence under Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Finally, the State Rules confer unguided power to the licensing authority and therefore, they fail the test of reasonableness and are arbitrary.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents filed their written submissions. The Act and the relevant Rules and Orders were referred to. Attention was driven to the expert opinion on characteristics of usage of molasses. Several decisions were relied on.