Prohibition Council, Mahe vs Union of India

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.

The petitioner has filed the present PIL seeks to assail the amendment to Rule 113 of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970, on the ground that it gives an unguided, arbitrary and illegal power qua the distance norm for setting up of the liquor shop by the introduction of the expression "as far as Possible" when prescribing the distance of 300 meters. As the sequester, it is prayed that no licence can be granted within 300 meters distance from an educational/religious institution, place of public workshop, public places etc.,. The third limb of the prayer is for reduction of numbers of liquor shops by not issuing any further licence for liquor shops or renewing licence disproportionate to the population of Mahe and declare more dry days. Insofar as Rule 113 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Others, , while interpreting the U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968, which proscribed any licence to be issued "in close proximity" to a place of public resort, school, hospital, etc.,. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court construed the said provision to imply a distance of 100 meters or 300 feet which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court.

In our view, the provision in Rule 113(2) would have to be construed keeping in mind the size of the city/town ship extension. It is stated that Mahe has radius of 9 square kilometres, but has 64 licenced liquor shops. These shops however are stated to be in existence for quite some time as no licences have been issued after 1980. The Government is stated to have taken a decision not to issue any licence in ''Mahe'' and ''Yanam'' regions in the year 2010. The expression, "as far as possible" would certainly envisage a distance less than 300 metres as specified in the main part of the Rule.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Government of Puducherry submits that draft Rules have been formulated which are shortly going to be put in public domain to invite objections. He submits that there is a proposed amendment to (Rule 113) in terms thereof. There would be restriction in establishment of a liquor shop within the distance of 50 metres and 100 metres qua municipal area and for any other area respectively from a place of worship or educational institutions. Thus, the Government would publicize the amendment to the Rule and anyone who wants to file an objection would have the right to do so. The final picture would emerge only thereafter and it is stated that the whole process to notify the Rule would take three months.

As to how many liquor shops should there be or licences renewed would not only depend on the aforesaid exercise, but also an exercise which ought to be carried out by the Government to find out the requisite number of liquor shops which should be in Mahe taking into consideration the population of that area. We are observing so, because the picture painted before us is of persons coming from adjacent states only for purposes of consumption of liquor on account of easier availability and price advantage. This certainly cannot be the objective of issuing licence.

As far as on what days should sale of liquor be prohibited is for the State Government to decide.

An aspect of concern which is pointed out to us is that a number of liquor shops are located next to the National Highways. The existence and continuity of liquor shops adjacent to the National Highways is itself in question, as there are clear restrictions in this behalf and for this purpose no material has been placed before us. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (Road Safety Cell), Government of India, Transport Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi, had issued a circular dated 01.12.2011 to all the Chief Secretaries of the States/Union Territories, for enforcement of Section 185 of MV Act 1988, against drunken driving and requested to take the following steps:

"(i) Removal of liquor shops along National Highways.

(ii) No fresh licence may be issued to liquor vendors to open liquor shops along National Highways, such cases may be reviewed and corrective action be taken under intimation to the Ministry."

The Government by letter dated 11.01.2012, requested the authorities to submit a detailed report about the steps taken by them in this regard.

This Court in K. Balu v. Union Government of India (DB) reported in 2013(1) CWC - 794, has disposed of the writ petition(PIL), with a direction to the respondents to relocate the existing liquor shops, which are located along the National/State Highways.

Suffice to say that the National Highways authority of India is the body concerned with it, which should infact inspect the national highways and advise the State Government as to which of the liquor shops are liable to be closed down and where advertisements should be published. We would call upon the State Government to take action in collaboration of the National Highways Authority of India in this behalf and steps should be taken to begin the process not later than 15 days from today and we would expect the process to be completed within the same period of three months.

In view of the earlier order of this Court cited supra, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

List for compliance on 15.12.2014 and the compliance report to be filed a week before the next date of hearing. A copy of the order be sent to the National Highways Authority of India.