S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these petitions and connected matters are either manufacturers or dealers in Indian Made Foreign Liquors, wines and country liquor. They are marketed throughout the country including the State of Karnataka. In order to market these liquors outside or import into the States of Tamil Nadu or Kerala or maharashtra or Goa or in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, they have necessarily to pass through the State of Karnataka. When transactions are entered into between dealers in the exporting States and the importing States the expressions 'export' and 'import' are used in a loose sense as in common parlance. For instance if the goods are sent from Maharashtra to a dealer in the Union Territory of Pondicherry they pass through the State of Karnataka. The question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the dealers are required to comply with conditions imposed in Karnataka while such goods are in transit from one State to another. ( 2 ) STATE of Karnataka has framed certain Rules known as the Karnataka (Liquortransit) Rules, 1985 (in short 'the Rules' ). These Rules require that a permit for transit of liquor throughout the State of Karnataka will have to be obtained and for that purpose when the goods are carried the carriers will have to stop at the checkpost and the Commissioner of Excise or the Deputy Commissioners of Excise will have to be approached with an application prescribed in Form T. P. A. under Rule 3 (2) of the said Rules and a transit permit obtained after furnishing the necessary information required in Form T. P. A. under Rule 3 (4) of the Rules. It is submitted that the information sought for in T. P. A. under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules is already available in the documents carried by the petitioners from the exporting States to the importing states, issued by the authorities concerned in the exporting as well as the importing states or the Union Territories, as the case may be. The respondents contend that even when the entire information is available in those documents in order to properly verify and keep check as to whether the goods are carried from and to those States or "dumped" in the State of Karnataka, it is necessary to frame these Rules. The respondents contend that even when the entire information is available in those documents in order to properly verify and keep check as to whether the goods are carried from and to those States or "dumped" in the State of Karnataka, it is necessary to frame these Rules. The petitioners further submit in regard to that contention of the respondents that when the activity is licitly carried on there is no need or necessity to "dump" the goods in the State while they are in transit as it is only when the goods are not supported by necessary documents that such "dumping" can take place and not otherwise and in that case obtaining of a transport permit does not arise at all. ( 3 ) IT is contended before me that these Rules are invalid as being violative of Articles 19 (1) (g) and 301 of the Constitution. It is stated that though the trade in liquor may not be a legitimate activity but once a privilege or a licence is granted under the relevant law, it is permissible to carry on such an activity. Then that activity would become legitimate and therefore necessarily Articles 19 (l) (g) and 301 of the Constitution would be attracted. But the Supreme Court in several cases including Sat pal and Co. vlt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1979 SC 1550 , has categorically and clearly held that there is no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor and same consideration would apply to Article 301. Therefore, it is not necessary to examine this aspect of the matter again. The contention that the Rules are violative of Articles 19 (l) (g) and 301 of the Constitution is not available to petitioners and is rejected. ( 4 ) NOW I shall first consider whether the Rules are ultra vires the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under Section 2 (29) of Karnataka excise Act the expression "transport" has been defined to include movement from one checkpost to another even in respect of goods transported from one State to another State by reason of the fact that the goods are to be routed through the State of karnataka. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under Section 2 (29) of Karnataka excise Act the expression "transport" has been defined to include movement from one checkpost to another even in respect of goods transported from one State to another State by reason of the fact that the goods are to be routed through the State of karnataka. Elaborating further it was contended for respondents that under Section 71 of the Act it is certainly permissible to frame Rules which would cover or include "transport" of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, wines and country liquor. Therefore it is competent for the Rule making authority to frame such Rules and once such Rules are framed and become law for the purpose intended, those Rules cannot be invalidated on the ground that they are either arbitrary or unreasonable. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Rules can be framed for the purposes of the Act and in the concept of transport as defined does not include the goods which are in transit by exporting from one State to another and passing through Karnataka and such a case is not covered by the Rule making power at all. In the present case, all that is sought to be done by the requirement of permits to be obtained is that certain information will have to be furnished to the authorities. The petitioners' principal objection to furnishing the information is in relation to Item Nos. 6 and 7. They are willing to furnish such information at the checkpost. However they find it difficult to give such information by stopping their vehicles at the State border and securing permits from the State excise authorities at the capital of the State. ( 5 ) IT is not the case of either party that if a permit is sought for it could not be refused. But on the other hand, it is stated that permits would be granted provided the necessary information is furnished. The information sought for by the State in this case is as in Form T. P. A. under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules which reads as follows: "form T. P. A. [see Rule 3 (2)] Application for permit for the transit of liquor through the State of Karnataka To The Commissioner of Excise, Karnataka State/the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. 1. 1. Name and address of the applicant 2. Description and quantity of liquor 3. Name and address of the person from whom the transit is to be made 4. Place to which the liquor is to be moved 5. Route and manner of transit (whether by rail or road or sea) 6. Registration No. of the vehicle in which the liquor is to be transported 7. Whether the permit from the competent Excise Officer of the place of despatch is enclosed Place: Date: I declare that the above particulars are correct. Signature of the Applicant. " the Rule making power is contained in Section 71 of the Act and may make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 12 requires the taking of permits for transport of intoxicants. The definition of the expression transport in Section 2 (29) of the Act shows that Section 12 applies only to movement or transport between two places within the State and not to a case of inter-State movement or transport. In fact this precise question came up for consideration in an earlier decision. The Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Export and Import of Intoxicants) rules, were subject matter of consideration in M/s. Vijaya Wine Stores and others v State of Karnataka, 1975 (1) Kar. LJ. 170, wherein it had been pointed by this Court that when a person transports intoxicants from one State to another State through some other State, the definition of the word 'transport' as envisaged under section 2 (29) of the Karnataka Excise Act is not attracted so far as the intervening states are concerned and therefore Section 12 of the Act can be applied only to movement or transport between places in the State and not in case of movement of inter-State transport, and it was held that neither the Karnataka Excise Act nor the said Rules made any provision requiring the persons concerned to obtain transit permits. Now, therefore, the present Rules with which we are concerned have been framed. These impugned Rules have been framed without amending any provision of the enactment or any requirement having been imposed therein that a permit is required for exporting or importing liquor from or to States outside Karnataka. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for respondents urged that expression in Section 2 (29) will include cases of import and export. These impugned Rules have been framed without amending any provision of the enactment or any requirement having been imposed therein that a permit is required for exporting or importing liquor from or to States outside Karnataka. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for respondents urged that expression in Section 2 (29) will include cases of import and export. The language of Section 2 (29) itself makes it clear that transport means to move from one place to another within the State, whether the intervening area is inside or outside. This argument of the learned counsel for State is not only contrary to the language of the section but is also contrary to the scheme of the Act. Separate provisions are made requiring permits for import and export under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Transport permits are required to be taken for movement of liquor within the State. What formalities have to be observed while the goods are in transit from one State to another via Karnataka are not provided for under the Act at all. The Act does not propose to cover cases of inter-State trade at all. It is faintly suggested that the State has no legislative competence to regulate inter-State trade but this contention cannot be taken seriously for in preventing evasion of the tax the States can make adequate provisions. But, as long as the legislative policy itself is not to regulate such activities, it is clear the Rules impugned herein fall outside the purview of the Act. Hence it cannot be said that the Rules as framed carry out the purposes of the Act. When the Act does not propose to insist upon any permit or indicate the measure or manner of control of liquor carried through the State by inter-State transactions for purposes of evasion of the Act, it becomes difficult to accept the argument to the contrary. This lacuna was pointed out in vijaya Wine Stores case but the State thought by framing only Rules the matter could be adequately dealt with but I am afraid not, for the reasons set forth above. ( 7 ) ASSUMING for arguments sake that the Rules are not ultra vires I shall examine whether they are arbitrary and violative of Article 14. ( 7 ) ASSUMING for arguments sake that the Rules are not ultra vires I shall examine whether they are arbitrary and violative of Article 14. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in all the States or Union Territories where liquor trade is carried on restrictions are imposed in respect of import and export of liquor and they are governed by the Rules and not only the import permits will have to be given by the states receiving such goods, export permits also will have to be given by the State authorities to export such goods. The learned counsel for the petitioners have made available the relevant Rules and a perusal thereof will indicate that the particulars that are required to be furnished as per the Liquor Transit Rules are also found therein. When that is so it becomes unnecessary for the petitioners to furnish afresh any of the particulars. On the other hand, the petitioners also submit that they are willing to give such particulars at entry and exit points at the checkposts, that is, when entering and leaving the State borders. Under Section 28-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act checkposts are created for purposes of avoiding evasion of sales tax even in respect of inter-State transactions when the goods enter the State borders and leave the same and the provisions in fact do not require of taking a permit as provided in the Liquor Transit Rules which are impugned herein. On the other hand, if the petitioners have to obtain such a permit under the Liquor Transit Rules, the driver or the person-in-charge of the vehicle will have to leave the goods at the State border, come to the City of Bangalore and obtain the same from the Commissioner of Excise and go back and thereafter make onward journey. This will not only entail loss of time but also unnecessary wastage of money and labour creating bottlenecks in free flow of trade. It is clear that the documents to be furnished by the petitioners if insisted upon by the respondents at the checkposts, which the petitioners are willing to do, and if the Rules are modified in that manner the petitioners can have no objection at all. What can be achieved in that manner have been unnecessarily complicated. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, I find the Rules framed by the respondents are arbitrary. What can be achieved in that manner have been unnecessarily complicated. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, I find the Rules framed by the respondents are arbitrary. Movement of liquor from one State to another being subject to control of export and import Rules framed in the respective States, I do not think that these Rules are not needed at all. Further, the Rules having been framed without due application of mind to all necessary and relevant factors is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution. ( 9 ) IN the result, these petitions are allowed declaring the impugned Rules as invalidand unenforceable. Rule made absolute accordingly. --- *** --- .