2022 Chhattisgarh molasses-control rules struck down as beyond the Excise Act’s scope

The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Molasses Control and Regulation Rules, 2022, seeking a declaration that the Rules were ultra vires the Constitution and consequential reliefs.

The petition was directed to be listed with WPC No. 498 of 2023 and WPC No. 3580 of 2022, although the latter had inadvertently been recorded as WPC No. 3580 of 2023.

By the time the present matter was taken up, WPC No. 3580 of 2022 and connected petitions had already been decided on 27 March 2026, holding the 2022 Rules ultra vires and granting consequential reliefs.

On 23 September 2026, no one appeared for the petitioner despite repeated calls, while counsel for the State and the Union of India were present.

Whether the Chhattisgarh Molasses Control and Regulation Rules, 2022 were ultra vires the Constitution and the enabling provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Whether molasses, in its raw form and before fermentation, could be brought within the regulatory and licensing framework of the Excise Act merely because it could be used in the manufacture of alcohol.

Whether the State could regulate molasses intended for non-distillation uses, including industrial, agricultural and cattle-feed purposes, under its excise-making power.

The Court applied Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, which confers State legislative competence over intoxicating liquor and extends to regulation from raw materials to consumption, including alcohol capable of being used noxiously to the detriment of public health.

However, the Court distinguished raw molasses from intoxicating liquor: molasses is a by-product of the sugar industry, is not fit for human consumption in its raw form, contains no alcohol, and becomes capable of producing alcohol only after fermentation.

Section 8(c) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, referring to “any other base” used for the manufacture of liquor, could not be interpreted so broadly as to include raw, non-intoxicant molasses.

Section 62, which authorises rule-making to carry out the purposes of the Act, does not permit delegated legislation to enlarge the scope of the parent statute; consequently, the 2022 Rules could not regulate ordinary trade or non-intoxicant uses beyond the Excise Act.

The Court did not undertake a separate merits analysis because the same legal challenge had already been decided in the connected batch.

Applying the reasoning of the earlier judgment, it treated raw molasses as a non-intoxicant substance rather than “intoxicating liquor” or an “excisable article.”

The possibility that molasses may later be fermented and used to produce alcohol was insufficient to bring all molasses within the Excise Act.

Such an interpretation would impermissibly extend the State’s legislative and delegated rule-making powers to ordinary commercial activities and uses outside the statute’s object.

Since the 2022 Rules imposed licensing, duty and regulatory controls even in relation to non-distillation uses, they exceeded the statutory authority conferred by the Excise Act.

The present writ petition was accordingly disposed of in terms of the conclusions and directions issued in the earlier batch of petitions, including consequential reliefs flowing from that judgment.

No separate order as to costs was made in the earlier batch.