Sellayya and Chokkalingam vs Divisional Excise Officer and State of Tamilnadu

S. Tamilvanan, J.—This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 24.12.1998 made in A.S. No. 171 of

1997 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, confirming the judgment and

decree, dated 29.01.1997 made in O.S. No. 568 of 1993 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram.

The appellants herein, as the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the respondents seeking a relief of declaration that the notice dated 28.07.1993

issued in Na.Ka.No.E2/657/91 in respect of the arrack shop No. 4/84-85 is illegal, legally not enforceable and consequently for permanent

injunction restraining the respondents herein from taking any action against the appellants/plaintiffs pursuant to the said notice dated 28.07.1993.

It is not in dispute that the appellants herein were the successful bidders in respect of the aforesaid arrack shop. According to the learned

Counsel appearing for the appellants, the respondents have claimed a sum of Rs. 25,404/- stating the amount as due and payable towards running

the arrack shop by the appellants/plaintiffs, though by the appellants, no such amount was due and payable.

Per contra, Mr. A. Sankarasubramanian, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable, in view

of Section 56-B of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to Section 56-B of the said Act,

wherein, there is a statutory bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts, which reads as follows:

No civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Commissioner or other officer or the Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Limited or other authority empowered by or under this Act has to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in

respect of any action taken or to be taken by such Commissioner, officer, Corporation or other authority in pursuance of any power conferred by

or under this Act.

In this case, it is not in dispute that the appellants/plaintiffs were the successful bidder in respect of the arrack shop. According to the learned

Counsel appearing for the appellants, as per the arrack shop auction, the respondents should supply 180 litres of arrack, for Rs. 1,000/-.

However, only 93 litres were supplied and hence, the appellants incurred loss. However as there is a statutory bar u/s 56-B of the Tamil Nadu

Prohibition Act, the reasons assigned by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs are not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of

any civil court, as the dispute relates to the action of arrack shop that had taken place under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. In view of the

statutory bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court, the court below has dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was not legally maintainable.

At the time of admission, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law for deciding the second appeal:

Whether the Court below is right in dismissing the suit on the ground that Section 95(B) is a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the

matter arising under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, especially when the Hon''ble High Court in W.P. No. 3530 of 1986 has directed that before any

direction is given, notice should be given to the appellant and more so, when the principles of natural justice is violated?

It cannot be disputed that as per Section 56(B) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, there is a bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court. It is seen

that there is a typical error in quoting the Section 95(B) of the Act instead of 56(B) of the Act. In view of the statutory bar u/s 56-B of the Tamil

Nadu Prohibition Act, Civil suit is not legally not maintainable for any action taken under this Act. Merely because notice was not given to the

appellants/plaintiffs or raising a plea on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, no civil court could be vested with any jurisdiction

under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and therefore, I answer the substantial question of law framed in the second appeal against the

appellants/plaintiffs, in view of the statutory bar under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

I could find no error or infirmity in the concurrent finding given by the courts below, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment.

In the result, the Second Appeal fails, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.