Gujarat High Court in the matter of ‘prohibition on manufacture, sale and consumption of liquor in the state’ with respect to the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 said that the petition holds accountability mainly on the grounds : ‘violation of right to privacy’ and ‘manifestation of arbitrariness’.
Advocate General Kamal Trivedi had argued yesterday that the petition is not maintainable as the issue was already settled in Stae of Bombay & Anr. V. FN Balsara by the apex Court. Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the 1949 Act in the case.
But Senior Advocate Mihir Thakore argued that the challenge in Supreme Court was limited to the extent of medicinal and toilet preparation.
On the other hand, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi was of the opinion that the matter which has been brought into the light has been settled before in a judgment by the Supreme Court. He stated that, a new ground cannot dispute the sanctity maintained by the SC.
Advocate Mihir Thakore pointed out that,Supreme Court considered Section 12 & 13 (prohibition on sale & manufacture of liquor) to the extent of medicinal and toilet preparation only. Section 24-1B (prohibition on entry in State in intoxicated condition) was not in existence then. Section 43 (regulation of use/ consumption of foreign liquor by permit holders) was not under challenge before Supreme Court.
Thakore brought out points which mostly pertained to violation of privacy and stated that, “If I want to consume liquor in the precincts of my home, that right you cannot control. If I misuse it, go out and misbehave, then certainly you can catch hold of me.”
He even said that several provisions challenged by the petitioner were not argued in apex Court and that in the judgements cited by Advocate General the same Section was challenged but on a different ground. He said that only a part of Section was challenged in the current case.
By team SLC
