JUDGMENT D.N. Jha, J. 1. Petitioners 1 to 10 are corporate bodies under the Indian Companies Act and are carrying on business of manufacturing medicinal preparations including spirituous medicinal preparations. The petitioners hold licences under Drugs Act for manufacturing spirituous medicinal preparations including some of the following preparations Viz. 1. Tincture Tolu 2. Tincture Orange (Tr. Aurantci) 3. Tincture Lemonis 4. Tincture Zinger (Tr. Zinzeberis Mitis & Fort) 5. Tincture Cardco 6. Spirit Menthapip They applied and were granted licences Ll or L2 under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act (hereinafter to the referred as 'the Act') This was for the purposes of excise duty and obtaining spirit (alcohol) for manufacture of spirituous medical preparations. The petitioners were preparing spirituous medicinal preparations according to the approved schedule and pharmacopoeia of the standard quality, under direct supervision of excise authorities. The Excise Commissioner, opposite party no. 2, issued an order contained in Annexure 1 to restrict the manufacture of spirituous medicinal preparations either directly or indirectly, under the licences held by the petitioners. In the year 1969, the Excise Commissioner had restricted preparation of certain spirituous medicinal preparations mentioned above and some of the Firms approached this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of writ petition no. 945 of 1969 connected with Writ Petitions Nos. 946 of 1969 and 147 of 1970 was pleased to quash that order. It appears that soon after the decision of this Court, the Excise Commissioner, while emergency was in vogue, issued the circular contained in Annexure 1 and this is how the petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the said order placing restrictions on their right in preparation of spirituous medicinal preparations, have filed this petition, inter alia, alleging that the order is wholly without jurisdiction and a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the same. 2. The petition has been resisted on behalf of opposite parties and a counteraffidavit has also been filed. It is asserted that Tincture Zinger has been dropped from the list of approved medicines by the U.P. Drug Controller since 1st April, 1978. Hence, the petitioners cannot manufacture tincture Zinger as this was the drug in which the rectified spirit was being used and consequently the said drug was being misused as liquor, much to the detriment of the excise revenue. Hence, the petitioners cannot manufacture tincture Zinger as this was the drug in which the rectified spirit was being used and consequently the said drug was being misused as liquor, much to the detriment of the excise revenue. Insofar as other items are mentioned, the rectified spirit is being used as one of the components and the same medicine was being misused as substitute for liquor; hence there was much loss to excise revenue, as the excise duty was less on such medicines as compared to liquor. The object was to place restrictions on these manufacturers who were using almost the entire quota of rectified spirit for the manufacture of medicinal preparations, besides using it for preparations of spirituous medicines. The Excise Commissioner felt satisfied that there was misuse of the rectified spirit and alcohol allotted to the petitioners under their licences; hence he refixed the quota of alcohol and rectified spirit in use of medicinal preparations. This is how the opposite parties asserted that the circular contained in Annexure 1 is valid. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments and cross averments made in the respective affidavits of the parties. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, in order to justify the circular contained in Annexure 1, placed reliance on para 51 sub clause (2) of the Excise Manual which reads as under: Medicinal preparations containing alcohol, which are capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverages falling under item 2 of the schedule to the Act, shall not be prepared from rectified spirit purchased at the duty of Rs. 1.10 n. p. per Londonproof litre. Such preparations shall be manufactured only from rectified spirit purchased at the duty of Rs. 3 85 n. p. per Londonproof gallon, and the rectified spirit tkus obtained shall be accounted for separately. Subclause (3)of Para 51 provides that in no case shall the quantity of rectified spirit in the possession of the manufacturer exceed the limit fixed by the licensing authority The learned counsel argued that by virtue of this provision the Excise Commissioner could place restrictions on the petitioner's right to manufacture drugs and regulate the supply of rectified spirit. In our opinion this contingency would arise only at the time of grant of licence, and once having fixed that quantity, it could not be changed. In our opinion this contingency would arise only at the time of grant of licence, and once having fixed that quantity, it could not be changed. The question that now arises for consideration is whether it can be subsequently curtailed to the detriment of the purpose for which rectified spirit and alcohol were issued to the licensees. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, in order to emphasize his submission further, placed reliance on section 31 of the U, P. Excise Act 1910. Section 31 reads as under : Every licence, permit or pass granted under this Act shall be granted (a) on payment of such fees (if any); (b) subject to such restrictions and on such conditions; (c) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as the Excise Commissioner may direct either generally or in any particular instance in this behalf. (d) .......................... The learned counsel argued that subclause(d) and subclause(c) of section 31 empower the Excise Commissioner to issue directions as are contained in Annexure 1. We are unable to subscribe to this submission. Section 31 provides for the form and conditions of the licences. It is well established that these licences are issued for a specified period, and the conditions, whatever are deemed necessary, are provided in the licence. Unfortunately, in the instant case the licences have not been placed on record in order to enable us to scrutinise the various conditions specified in the licences or any schedule attached to the licences. 4. It is well established that the preparation of spirituous medicines have to be in keeping with the percentage provided in the approved schedule and pharmacopoeia. The reading of Annexure 1 shows that in order to stop the misuse of the rectified spirit and alcohal allotted to the licences, the following decision is taken: 1. After August 1, 1975(?) per cent of the alloted quota of alcohal shall be used for the preparation of Tincture Tolu, Tincture Orange, Tincture Lemonis, Tincture Zinger and Spirit Menthapip. 2. Tincture Zinger Fort shall be prepared in accordance with Tincture I.P. and in such preparation of Zinger 500 gms of Zinger per litre of alcohol shall be mixed. Besides this, no other Tincture Zinger shall be produced. 3. Tincture Cardco may be produced in such quantity which is equivalent to the average of last three year's production. 2. Tincture Zinger Fort shall be prepared in accordance with Tincture I.P. and in such preparation of Zinger 500 gms of Zinger per litre of alcohol shall be mixed. Besides this, no other Tincture Zinger shall be produced. 3. Tincture Cardco may be produced in such quantity which is equivalent to the average of last three year's production. In the said annexure it has nowhere been mentioned by the Excise Commissioner that the circular was being issued in exercise of powers contained in pursuance of any act, rule, regulation or bye laws. In our opinion, subclause(b) and subclause(c) of Section 31 of the U. P. Excise Act do not empower the issue of such a direction. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has not been able to place any provision in any act which empowered the Excise Commissioner for issue of such a circular. The provision on which reliance has been placed, does not empower the Excise Commissioner for such a circular to be issued for curtailing quantity allowed to the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel also placed reliance on rule 84(2) of the Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties) Rule, 1956. This rule was relied upon by the State Counsel in writ petition no. 945 of 1969 connected with other petitions, about which a mention has already been made above and the learned single Judge held that the impugned order which was identical to Annexure 1 of this writ petition was not passed in exercise of powers under rule 84(2) and, therefore, had been pleased to quash the impugned order of that writ petition. It has not been contended before us that the impugned order in this writ petition contained in Annexure 1 stands on a different footing. We do not think it necessary to repeat the reasons adopted by the learned single Judge while deciding those writ petitions and it would be sufficient to say that that rule did not empower the Excise Commissioner to issue such a circular. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Annexure l was issued without any power vested in the Excise Commissioner in law and, therefore, is without jurisdiction. 6. We are, however, not in agreement to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said order is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution. 6. We are, however, not in agreement to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said order is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution. The petitioners admittedly are corporate bodies registered under the Indian Companies Act and are carrying on business. They do not fall within the category of citizen of this country and, therefore, in our opinion cannot invoke Article 19(1)(g). (See the State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambika Mills Limited, AIR 1974 Supreme Court, 1300, paragraph 24) wherein it has been observed as under; It is stated by the decisions of this Court that a Corporation is not a citizen for the purpose of Article 19 and has, therefore, no fundamental right under that Article. (See Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1965 SC 40 ), R.C. Cooper v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 564 ). The same view was taken in Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 106 ). 7. No other point has been pressed nor is involved is this petition. However, in view of our finding that there was no data before the Excise Commissioner with respect to the petitionerfirms that they were indulging in misuse of alcohol issued to them and by reason of the fact that the order contained in Annexure I was issued without any jurisdiction, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. The result is that the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed. Let certiorari issue accordingly. We direct the parties to bear their own costs. (Petition allowed)