51 (53 )BOMLR982 , 1951 INSC 39 , (1951 )II MLJ141 , [1951 ]2 SCR682 , ,MANU/SC/0009/1951Saiyid Fazl Ali#M. Patanjali Sastri#B.K. Mukherjea#Sudhi Ranjan Das#Vivian Bose#5MANU/SC/0595/1989529SC7750Judgment/OrderAIR#BomLR#INSC#MANU#MLJ#SCRSaiyid Fazl Ali,M. Patanjali Sastri,B.K. Mukherjea,Sudhi Ranjan Das,Vivian Bose,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24General Definitions,Statute relating to the General Clauses,Legislative Power,Operation controlled on considerations of constitutionality,Operation of Statutes,Presumption of Constitutionality,Operation controlled on considerations of constitutionality,Operation of Statutes,Delegated Legislation,Distinction between conditional and delegated legislation,Constitutional Limits of Legislative Delegation,Delegated Legislation,Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, Void,Right to Freedom,Law of Bail,Interpretation of Statutes17055,12190,12191,12203,12204,12212,12213,12215,12216,12217,12218,12219,12554,12220,12228,12221,12222,12225,12229,12238,12239,12241,12330,12331,12333,12351,12263,12272,12729,12739,89514,16958,16910,12230,12733,12176,16916,16909,12232,12227 -->

MANU/SC/0009/1951

BomLR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Cases Nos. 182 & 183 of 1951

Decided On: 25.05.1951

Appellants: State of Bombay and Ors. Vs. Respondent: F.N. Balsara

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, B.K. Mukherjea, Sudhi Ranjan Das and Vivian Bose

JUDGMENT

Saiyid Fazl Ali, J.

1. These appeals arise from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay upon the application of one F. N. Balsara (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), assailing the validity of certain specific provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act No. XXV of 1949), as well as of the Act as whole. The petitioner, claiming to be an Indian citizen, prayed to the High Court inter alia for the writ of mandamus against the State of Bombay and the Prohibition Commissioner ordering them to forbear from enforcing against him the provisions of the Prohibition Act and for the issue of a writ of mandamus ordering them (1) to allow him to exercise his right to possess, consume and use certain articles, namely, whisky, brandy, wine, beer, medicated wine, eau-de-cologne, etc, and to import and export across the Customs frontier and to purchase, possess consume and use any stock of foreign liquor, eau-de-cologne, lavender water, medicated wines and medicinal preparations containing alcohol, and (2) to forbear from interfering with his right to possess these articles and to take no steps or proceedings against him, penal or otherwise, under the Act. The petitioner also prayed for a similar order under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act against the respondents. The High Court, agreeing with some of the petitioner's contentions and disagreeing with others, declared some of the provisions of the Act to be invalid and the rest to be valid. Both the State of Bombay and the petitioner, bei........