Judgment K.A. Puj, J.—Since, common, issue is involved in both these petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The facts are taken from Special Civil Application No. 472 of 2009 for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioners have filed these two petitions praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.12. 2008 at Annexure F of the petition passed by the Respondent No. 2 and the order dated 05.01. 2009 at Annexure G to the petition passed by the Respondent No. 3. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to issue poison license in favour of the petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009. 4. This Court, has issued notice on 21.01.2009. On notice being served to the respondents an affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondents on 09.02. 2009 and an affidavit in rejoinder is filed by the petitioner on 11.02.2009. 5. Since, the pleadings between the parties are completed and looking to the urgency of the matter, both the petitions are taken up for final hearing. 6. The brief facts giving rise to the persent petition are that a poison license No. 4 of 80 under the provisions of the Poisons Act, 1919 was issued in the name of one Amrutlal Hardasbhai Mali and that was valid upto 31.12. 2004. The said Shri Amrutlal Hardasbhai Mali was holding a license under the provisions of the Gujarat Poppy Capsules Rules, 1963, bearing Poppy-2 License No. 5/2002-03 to sell poppy capsules. The said Amrutlal Hardasbhai Mali subsequently constituted partnership firm namely Pipaleshwar Trading Company w.e.f. 04.12.2002. On constitution of the partnership firm, amougst the petitioner and the said Amrutlal Hardasbhai Mali the license was deemed to have been issued in the name of partnership firm Thereafter, the said Shri Amrutlal Hardasbhai Mali retired from, the partnership firm and the petitioner has become the sole proprietor of the said business of selling poppy capsules. After the retirement of the said Shri Amrutlal Hardasbhai Mali the poppy-2 license No.5. 2005-06’was issued in the name of the petitioner which was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise. Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 25.03.2004. The said license was thereafter renewed from, time to time and it was lastly renewed till 31.03.2009. 7. After the retirement of the said Shri Amrutlal Hardasbhai Mali the poppy-2 license No.5. 2005-06’was issued in the name of the petitioner which was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise. Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 25.03.2004. The said license was thereafter renewed from, time to time and it was lastly renewed till 31.03.2009. 7. The factum of constitution of partnership firm amongst the petitioner and the said Amrutlal Hardasbhai Mali, however, was not made known to the Respondent No. 2 by inadvertence. The petitioner was however, allowed to do his business by selling poppy capsules to the respondent. The petitioner thereafter applied to renew the poison license under the Act on 31.12.2004. The Respondent No. 2 however on 01.05.2006 passed the order canceling the said license. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in special Civil Application No. 4322 of 2007, since, the said order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court vide its order dated 22.02. 2007 quashed and set aside the said order and directed the Respondent No. 2 to hear the petition and decide the renewal application dated 30.12.2004. Since, no decision was taken by Respondent No. 2 and Mamlatdar, Radhanpur has to be sealed on the business premises of the petitioner on 03.05.2007 without issuing any notice, the petitioner approached the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and thereafter the seal, was removed on 09.05.2007. However, the directions were issued to the petitioner not to sell the poppy capsules till the petitioner received further instructions. 8. The petitioner, therefore, filed another application before this Court, being Special Civil Application No. 12868 of 2007. During the pendency of the said petition, the Respondent No. 2 served upon, the petitioner a show cause notice dated 15.05.2007 alleging that the petitioner continued the business of selling poppy capsules and during the checking of the shop/godown on 09.05.2007, 1000kgs unauthorised goods were found. The petitioner submitted the reply on 11.06.2007 to the said, notice. Since the Respondent No. 2 has not taken any step nor considered the said reply the petitioner preferred the said Civil Application No. 16107 of 2007 for appropriate relief. The petitioner submitted the reply on 11.06.2007 to the said, notice. Since the Respondent No. 2 has not taken any step nor considered the said reply the petitioner preferred the said Civil Application No. 16107 of 2007 for appropriate relief. Despite the notice having been served on the Respondent No. 2, an order was passed by him on 27.06.2007 directing the confiscation of the 1000 kgs poppy capsules and rejecting the application on 30.12.2004 for renewal of poison license. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 16964 of 2007. While disposing of the said petition along with other petitions this Court directed the respondent. No. 2 to decide the petitioners application within ten days with further direction, that Respondent No. 2 shall keep in view that, the petitioners have been in this business for the last’ many years and their families are solely dependent- upon the livelihood from his business. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner’s poison, license was renewed till 31.12.2007. The petitioner thereafter applied before Respondent No. 2 on 27.11.2007 for renewal of the poison license. The respondent. No. 2 did not pass any order till 31.12.2008, hence, the petitioner made an application on 31.12.2008 to renew the poison license till 31.12.2009. Both these applications were rejected by the Respondent No. 2 by common order dated 31.12.2008 on the ground that the petitioner had stocked 500 to 600 kgs poppy capsules. Based on this order the Respondent No. 3 also served an order dated 05.01.2009 directing the petitioner to stop the business pursuant to the directives issued by the Respondent No. 2. 9. These two orders are under challenge in the present petition. 10. Mr. P.J. Kanabar learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the poppy capsules is an intoxicant’ within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949. Under Sub clause (2) of Section 4 of the Prohibition Act, 1949 the Collectors are considered to be subordinate to the Director. Under Section 139(1)(b) and Section 143(1)(b) the State Government is authorised to make provisions by general or special order or by making rules to regulate the import, export, transport, possession, sale and purchase etc of an intoxicant. Under Sub clause (2) of Section 4 of the Prohibition Act, 1949 the Collectors are considered to be subordinate to the Director. Under Section 139(1)(b) and Section 143(1)(b) the State Government is authorised to make provisions by general or special order or by making rules to regulate the import, export, transport, possession, sale and purchase etc of an intoxicant. In exercise of powers under Section 143 of the Act, the State Government has framed Gujarat Poppy Capsules Rules, 1963" and under Rule 2(f) the ‘Licensing Authority’ is defined. The licensing authority in the resent case is Respondent No. 3. Under Clause 4 of Rule 5 of the Rules it is provided that the licensing authority will fix the quantity of poppy capsules to be stocked at a time of sale, under Rule 5A of the Rules, the maximum limit for sale is prescribed to be 200 kgs per calendar month. 11. Based on the provisions of the Prohibition Act as well as Gujarat Poppy Capsule Rules, Mr. Kanabar has submitted that, the petitioner has not committed any breach of the license. He has further submitted that neither in the Poison Act nor in the Poisons Rule no restriction about the quantity of sale and /or the stock is made. He has submitted that the impugned, orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 12. The Respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 14.08.2008 appraised Respondent No. 2 that the stock and sale limits are prescribed under the Rules and any deviation from these rules in Patan District is likely to create problem to the license holder’s. The Respondent No. 2 being subordinate to Respondent No. 1 ought to have accepted the advise and ought not to have passed the impugned orders. He has further submitted that the impugned orders are passed out of enemity and without any authority of law and in compete disregard of principles of natural justice. He has therefore submitted that the impugned order are liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. Mr. Kanabar has further submitted that the poppy capsules did not fall under the provisions of Poisons Act or under the rules framed thereunder. The requirement poison license is not a precondition to do the business of selling of the poppy capsules. The cancellation of license and closing of the business of the petitioner by the Respondent No. 3 is therefore not justified. 14. The requirement poison license is not a precondition to do the business of selling of the poppy capsules. The cancellation of license and closing of the business of the petitioner by the Respondent No. 3 is therefore not justified. 14. Mr. Kanabar has further submitted that the petitioner has been carrying on business of selling poppy capsules to the needy persons for medicine purposes for the last more than 7 years. There was no complaint, to any of the respondents in connection, with the license business and hence, there was no justification for the Respondent No. 2 to pass the impugned orders. : . 15. Mr. Kanabar relies on the judgment of this Court Hathi @ Mangalsinh Ramdalyalji vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1993 (2) GLH 673 Based on this judgment he submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 16. An. affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2. Ms. Trusha Patel learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent submitted that the poppy is the substance which is poison within the purview of the Poisons Act and is a prohibited substance under the Prohibition Act. Any person who wants to sell the said substance has to obtain license under both the Acts and has to fulfill all the conditions enumerated in the licenses issued under both the Acts. She has further submitted that poppy is the substance included in the definition of poison. Rule 2 provides for definition of the poison which reads as under “Poison-The substances specified in the schedule to these rules shall be deemed to the poison for the purpose of these rules.” The schedule .includes poppy and all preparations of poppy. Therefore, it is a poisonous substance. She has further submitted that Section 2 of the Poisons Act, 1919 provides for the powers of State Government to regulate possession for sale and sale of any poison. In view of Section 2 the rules are framed and Rule 3 provides for prohibition of sale or possession of poison without license which says that no person, unless exempted under the provisions of the Act shall sell or possess for sale any poison specified in Rule 2, except under license granted in that behalf. In view of Section 2 the rules are framed and Rule 3 provides for prohibition of sale or possession of poison without license which says that no person, unless exempted under the provisions of the Act shall sell or possess for sale any poison specified in Rule 2, except under license granted in that behalf. In furtherance of the said rules a form, is prescribed which provides for the maximum quantity to be kept as stock and also the maximum, quantity to be sold per month by the license holder. In the case of the petitioner, at the time of issuing license quantity of maximum permissible stock and sale/ months is prescribed. The petitioner has never objected to the condition providing for maximum, stock and sale. He has never challenged the said condition, also. She has therefore, submitted that after committing the breach of conditions enumerated in the license, the petitioner cannot challenge the validity of the conditions. The petitioner himself cannot decide that such condition is not valid and therefore he is entitled to commit breach of such condition. She has submitted that in the license itself by condition. No. 7 it is provided, that the District Magistrate shall have power to cancel the license. Thus, the District Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order and hence, it does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. Ms. Trusha Patel has further submitted that the poppy is a poisonous substance which, requires control for selling and possessing. The State Government has therefore, in the interest of public health prescribed the norms as per which the maximum quantity to be stocked the sale is to be regulated by prescribing the same in the license. She has further submitted that reliance placed by the petitioner on the earlier order of this Court has no relevance at all as in the earlier, case the issue before this Court was that of issuance of license and renewal of license. The question, of breach of conditions was not the issue at all. Even otherwise, pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by this Court the license was issued in favour of the petitioner which itself contains condition to maintain maximum stock and restriction on maximum sale. The question, of breach of conditions was not the issue at all. Even otherwise, pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by this Court the license was issued in favour of the petitioner which itself contains condition to maintain maximum stock and restriction on maximum sale. The petitioner has apparently breached the condition of license and hence, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is absolutely just and proper and no interference by this Court is required. 18. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and having considered the rival submissions as well as the impugned order in light of the provisions contained in Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and rules framed thereunder as well as the Poisons Act, 1919 and the Gujarat Poppy (Possession and Sales) Rules, 1963, the Court, is of the view that when the license is issued by the authorities in favour of the petitioner under both the statues namely Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 as well as Poison Act, 1919, the provisions contained in both the Acts are required to be complied with. Under the Poisons Act, 1919, Section 2 discusses about the power of the State Government, to regulate possession for sale and sale of any poison. The State Government is empowered to frame rules for regulating the possession for sale, whether wholsesale or retail, of specified, poison. In Sub-section 2(2), the State Government is also empowered to frame rules providing for the maximum quantity of any such poison which may be sold to any one person. Section 6 of the Act discusses about the penalty for unlawful importation etc. It stipulates that whoever commits a breach of any rule made under Section. 2, or imports without a license into India across of customs frontier defined, by the Central Government any poison, the importation of which is for the time being restricted under Section 3, or breaks any condition of a license for the importation of any poison granted to him under Section 3, shall be punishable on a first conviction with imprisonment for a terms which may extend, to three months,’ or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both and on a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a terms which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 19. 19. The word “poison” is defined under the Rules, Rule 2 says that the substance specified in the schedule to these rules shall be deemed to be a poison for the purpose of these rules. Schedule interalia includes poppy all preparations of except red poppy petals. Thus, there is no dispute about the fact that the poppy-2 is poisonous substance within the meaning of Rules. Rule 3 stipulates that no person unless exempted under the provisions of the Act shall sell or possess for sale any poison specified in rule 2, except, under the license granted in that behalf. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is exempted under the provisions of the Act. The license under the Poisons Act is issued in favour of the petitioner. Under the license the petitioner is permitted to keep stock of poppy-2 upto 300 kgs and the petitioner can sell poppy-2 upto 200 kgs. The authorities have found that the petitioner has kept the stock more than 600 kgs in each month despite the fact that the sale of poppy 2 per month is less than 200 kgs. The authorities have further found that the petitioner has consistently committed breach of the license issued in his favour. Despite this fact the petitioner was granted a new license being license No. 5/07 on 21.07.2007 and even thereafter the breach was continued. The authorities were therefore, constrained to cancel the said license. The argument of Mr. Kanabar is that the petitioner was permitted to sell poppy-2 upto 200 kgs. He was permitted to keep the stock upto 600 kgs by Superintendent of Prohibition vide license dated 09.04.2008 issued in his favour. In this license, the petitioner was permitted to sell Poppy-2 upto 200 kgs. He was permitted to keep the stock upto 600 kgs. The petitioner has never committed breach of license issued in his favour under the Prohibition Act. However, this argument is not weighed with the Court. When the petitioner is supposed to obtain the license under the Poisons Act and such license prescribed particular limit of selling as well as stocking poppy capsules such limit will have to be observed. The petitioner has never committed breach of license issued in his favour under the Prohibition Act. However, this argument is not weighed with the Court. When the petitioner is supposed to obtain the license under the Poisons Act and such license prescribed particular limit of selling as well as stocking poppy capsules such limit will have to be observed. There is no substance in the submission that in absence of any provision prescribing the limit for sale or for keeping the stock of poppy 2 under the Poisons Act or the Rules framed thereunder the Respondent No. 3 is not empowered to impose such restrictions while issuing license. 20. Even otherwise, Poisons Act is Central Act whereas the Prohibition Act is a local Act and hence, Central Act prevails upon the local. Act as per the mandate contained in Article 254 of the Constitution of India. While considering the submissions of the petitioner, the Court has to keep in mind the objects of the Poisons Act. The object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the law regulating importation, possession and sale of poisons. The authorities will have to see that the possession and sale of poison in a particular area should not exceed to a particular limit and such limit is prescribed in the license. The Court therefore does not accept-the submissions of Mr. Kanabar that the licensing authority under the Poisons Act has no power to prescribe a particular limit of sale or possession of the poison. Looking to the object of the Act, the Court should not construe the provisions liberally. On the contrary strict compliance of the provisions of the Act is required. It is also important to note that at the time when the license was issued under the Poisons Act in favour of the petitioner prescribing the limit, no objection was raised by the petitioner. Once having committed the breach and thereafter to raise an objection is not just and proper. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Kanabar reported in 1993 (2) GLH 673 (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case the question involved was renewal of license and it was decided only on the ground of non-discrimination. Here in the present case the issue involved is cancellation of license. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Kanabar reported in 1993 (2) GLH 673 (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case the question involved was renewal of license and it was decided only on the ground of non-discrimination. Here in the present case the issue involved is cancellation of license. Once the petitioner has committed breach of the conditions laid down in the license and the said breach, is consistent, the authorities are justified in cancellation of the license. 21. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the statutory provisions the Court does not find any substance or merits in any of these two petitions and hence they are summarily dismissed. 22. A copy of this order should be placed in each of these two petitions.