Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has upheld the decision of the Maharashtra government, by which the sale of methanol would be regulated. The HC trashed the contention of the chemical manufacturers, who claimed the decision would make a direct impact on their business as it would hamper inter-state trade. A bench of Justices Bhushan Gavai and Dama Naidu turned down the contention of Rashtriya Chemical Fertilisers (RCF) and other manufacturers that the government has brought in an ‘extra territorial’ law.
The RCF had challenged the provisions of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972. The provisions under challenge were introduced by way of amendments made in the original law in 2011. The manufacturer had also challenged the action initiated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which had carried out several raids on their premises to check compliance with the new rules.
The bench while deciding the issue, noted that methanol was first added in the Schedule to the Maharashtra Poisons Rules but later removed in 1991 and again in 2011, the substance was added into the Schedule by way of some amendments in the law. These amendments, particularly Rule 18A (2) of the law, were challenged by the RCF, claiming it to have extra-territorial operation. The bench further took note of the fact that the government had in 2006 proposed to include methanol in the list of poisons, following a hooch tragedy wherein several persons died by consuming spurious-liquor. The government, however, relaxed the sale by putting a condition that the sellers must add denaturants and bitterants to methanol before it was sold.
During the course of the hearing, the manufacturers argued that methanol is widely used in chemical and pharmaceutical industries and as the local production is limited, Maharashtra imports much of this substance. They further highlighted the fact that the turnover in this sale is over Rs 1,000 crore. The manufacturers further argued that the government has no power to regulate the trade in methanol affecting persons outside Maharashtra and nor can it affect interstate trade or commerce.
Trashing all these contentions, the bench said, “The impugned provisions only conditions the sale of methanol wherein a licensed seller is compelled to ascertain from the prospective purchaser the intended use of the substance. Under these circumstances, we fail to see how the said rules have any extraterritorial operation. We, therefore, dismiss both the writ petitions as devoid of any merit.”