it Petition Civil No of 1990
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India NDR Ramachandra Rao and Vineet Kumar for the petitioner
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI CJ
This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India
The petitioner claims to be a public spirited individual
He further claims to be a person aggrieved and seeks to assail the constitutional validity of the State of Karnataka and the Union of India not promoting enforcing and carrying out the policy of prohibition ie manufacturing sale and consump tion of intoxicating drinks and drugs throughout the coun try India Bharat and also assails the constitutional validity of clause b of sub rule 1 of rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors Rules 1968 as amended by the Karnataka Excise Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors Amendment Rules 1989 which came into fore on 10th September 1989
The petitioner refers to the Preamble to the Constitution which 3 according to him explains the general purpose behind the general provisions of the Constitution
He refers to Mahatma Gandhi and his commitment to prohibition
According to the petitioner manufacture sale and consumption of intoxicat ing drinks and drugs have become a stumbling block and a dangerous dragon to the progress and stability of the nation as a whole
The petitioner states that unless this dragon is completely destroyed the country could never think of achieving the objects of the Constitution and justice social economic and political
People are flouting the laws of this country therefore the petitioner objects that the State should take upon the business of selling liquors
He has asserted that the State of Karnataka instead of bringing total prohibition in the State has evinced interest in taking up the responsibility of selling liquors to the general public
Hence it is bad and contrary to the Constitution and he challenges the amendment which pre scribes the licence for sale shall be issued to only such company owned or controlled by the State Government as the State Govt
may specify
According to the petitioner such a rule is unconstitutional
He draws our attention to Article 47 of the Constitution of India which indicates directive principles
In the aforesaid view of the matter he claims that this Court should direct the Union of India and other State Governments to enforce the policy of total prohibition throughout the country including the State of Karnataka and to impose restrictions on manufacture sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks and to declare rule 3 of the these rules as void and unconstitutional
We are unable to entertain this writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution
The petition of the peti tioner is that the policy of prohibition is not being imple mented as enjoined by article 47 of the Constitution
In our opinion it is not entertainable
Article 47 of the Consti tution which is part of our Directive Principles of State Policy enjoins that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health
Article 47 is in Part IV of the Constitution which contains Directive Principles of State Policy
Article 37 enjoins that the provisions of this Part shall not be enforceable by any court but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the gover nance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws
It has to be borne in mind that Article 4 32 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to enforce rights which are fundamental rights
Fundamental rights are justifiable Directive Principles are not
Direc tive Principles are aimed at securing certain values or enforcing certain attitudes in the law making and in the administration of law
Directive Principles cannot in the very nature of things be enforced in a court of law
See in this connection the observations of this Court in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh vs Union of India  Whether a law should be made embodying the prin ciples of Directive Principles depends on the legislative will of the legislature
What the petitioner seeks to achieve by this application is to inject a sense of priority and urgency in that legislative will
Determining the choice of priorities and formulating perspective thereof is a matter of policy
Article 32 is not the machinery through which policy preferences or priorities are determined and this Court is not the forum where the conflicting claims of policies or priorities should be debated
See the observa tions of this Court in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union of India  at p 584
We find no direct or casual violation of any fundamental right of which the petitioner can legitimately claim en forcement in this application
To make the State accept a particular policy desirable and necessary as the policy might be is not the function of Article 32 of the Constitu tion
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is not the nest for all the bees in the bonnet of public spirited persons 
In the aforesaid view of the matter we decline to entertain this application and the same is accordingly dismissed
PSS Petition dismissed


Summary:
The assessee who was ordinarily resident in British India carried on business at Khurja and Aligarh in India and at Chistian in the Indian State of Bahawalpur
He kept a central set of accounts of the business at Khurja which were maintained on the mercantile system
Under the said system credit entries are made in respect of amounts due immediately they become legally due and even before they are actually received
In his account books the income received by the assessee from all sources was shown and the interest account showed credit entries of amounts received as interest on capital invested in the shop at Chistian
The assessee conceded that as creditor he had the right to enforce the payment of interest in British India and that liability of the Chistian shop had been extinguished to the 46 extent of the interest paid by it to the head office
The Income Tax Authorities included these amounts in the assessee s taxable income in India and levied tax on them
The assessee contended that the entries in respect of the receipt of interest were merely book entries and that the authorities had wrongly treated these amounts as having been actually received
Held that the relevant entries in the books of account did justify the inference that the assessee had actually received the amounts by way of interest
Where an assessee Keeps accounts according to the mercantile method of book keeping the effect of making a credit entry in the interest account would be to treat that amount as income or profits received by the assessee or treated by him as received for the purposes of the tax
Commissioner of Income tax vs ATKPLSP Subramaniam Chettiar Mad 765 approved
Gresham Life Assurance Society Ltd vs Bishop 1902 AC 287 Keshav Mills Ltd vs Commissioner of Income tax Bombay   Sunder Das vs The Collector of Gujrat Lah 349 referred to
The assessee sought to raise a new point that it was a rule of universal application that no person could trade with himself and that accordingly the interest alleged to have been received from his own shop at Chistian could not amount to receipt of any income by him and referred to Dublin Corporation vs M Adam  Ostime vs Pontypridd and Rhondda joint Water Board 1944 28 Tax Cas 261  Caylisle and Silloth Golf Club vs Smith  New York Life Insurance Company vs Styles   Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs Commissioner of Income tax Central Bombay and Ram Lal Bechairam vs Commissioner of Income tax AIR 1946 All
The respondent contended that the principle was not inflexible or universal and that the new point having been raised for the first time in appeal ought not to be permitted to be raised
Sharkey vs Wernher 1956 A C 58 referred to
Held that the new point could not be allowed to be raised as that would mean the re opening of the whole enquiry into the question as to the remittances from Chistian to Khurja as well as the rates at which the tax were to be levied on the assessee
If the assessee wanted to rely upon this principle the point ought to have been urged at the earlier stage of the proceedings