Raees Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

In our order dated 22.07.2020, we had noted the submission of Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, that the main-door of the liquor-

shop is beyond 220 meters from the National Highway; the flexi-boards placed on the liquor-shop have been removed; the windows have also been

sealed; the inside of the liquor-shop is no longer visible from the National Highway; and, since the main-door of the liquor-shop is beyond 220 meters

from the National Highway, the order of the Supreme Court has not been violated.

We had also noted that, from the photographs annexed with the writ petition, it appeared that, while the building in which the liquor-shop was

located was abutting the National Highway, it faced agricultural fields located on the other side of the National Highway; and it was only the back of

the building which abutted the National Highway.

While expressing our doubts as to how the distance of 220 meters was computed from the main-door of the liquor-shop, we had also not ruled out

the possibility of a circuitous route having been taken only to overcome the distance requirement of 220 meters, for the photographs showed that the

building had been constructed right next to the National Highway, except that the back of the building faced the National Highway and the front of the

building faced open fields.

With a view to satisfy ourselves on whether or not the stand taken by the 4th respondent was valid, we had requested the District Judge, Nainital to

forthwith depute a judicial officer and cause an inspection of the area, by the next day, to ascertain the exact location of the building; whether the

building is adjacent to the Highway; whether the main-door of the building opens towards any other road; whether the distance from the main-door of

the building and the National Highway is beyond 220 meters; and whether this subterfuge, of claiming that the building is located beyond 220 meters

from the Highway, has been resorted to, only to overcome the directions of the Supreme Court.

The order of the Supreme Court prohibited liquor shops being established within a distance of 220 meters from the National Highway; and required

such liquor shops not be visible from the National Highway. What the private respondent has done, prima facie with the collusion of the 4th

respondent, is to construct a building wherein the liquor shop, as shall be detailed later in the order, is located at a distance of only 31 meters from the

National Highway. While the back portion of the building faces the Highway, the front door opens into agricultural fields, over which two narrow path-

ways are laid, only to claim that the distance stipulation by the Supreme Court, of a minimum of 220 meters from the National Highway, is satisfied.

Pursuant to our order, the learned District Judge, Nainital deputed the learned First Additional District Judge, Nainital to cause an inspection. The

report of the learned First Additional District Judge dated 23.07.2020 records as under:

“…..That the aforesaid English and country-made liquor shops are adjacent to National Highway-121 (NH-309) and the difference between the

aforesaid liquor-shops and the National Highway would be about 20 meters.

That the National Highway is located at the back of liquor-shop towards the east and the main-door opens towards the west. From both sides of the

building, there are two unconstructed ways of three feet and 13 feet, and on the spot, the distance between the main-door and the National Highway

would be about 31 meters.â€​

From the photographs annexed with the report, it is clear that the front door of the building, wherein the liquor shop is located, faces agricultural

fields. Two narrow path-ways are laid across these agricultural fields to claim that the circuitous route, which is required to be taken to reach the

National Highway, is beyond the 220 meters stipulation. The windows on the backside of the building, wherein the liquor shop is housed, have been

closed only to contend that the said liquor-shop is not visible from the Highway.

With a view to attract customers, flexi-boards were hitherto placed which, after the writ petition was filed, have been removed, lest this Court fault

the fourth respondent in this regard. This subterfuge resorted to by the private respondent, prima facie in collusion with the 4th respondent, cannot be

countenanced. Orders of the Supreme Court must be complied with in its letter and spirit. It is the obligation of the High Court, under Article 144 of

the Constitution of India, to ensure that the directions of the Supreme Court are strictly adhered to.

Prima facie establishment of the subject liquor-shop, in flagrant violation of the directions of the Supreme Court, is by subterfuge. The fourth-

respondent shall forthwith and, in any event, by 27th July, 2020 seal the entire premises and prevent the liquor-shop from carrying on any activities,

including sale of liquor.

While we are satisfied, prima facie, that the 4th respondent has sought to mislead this Court, that he has instructed the learned Chief Standing

Counsel to make a submission contrary to the factual position on ground, and that such acts on the part of the fourth-respondent would necessitate his

being prosecuted for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, it is but appropriate that the 4th respondent is given an opportunity of being

heard before any such order is passed.

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to direct the Registry to make available copies of the report of the learned Additional District

Judge, Nainital, both to Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State Government, and to Sri T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the

5th respondent, to enable them to file their objections, if any.

While it is open both to the fourth-respondent and to the private respondent to file their objections, to the report of the learned Additional District

Judge, the fourth-respondent shall, in addition thereto, show cause, by the next date of hearing, as to why proceedings should not be initiated against

him for misleading the Court and thereby committing criminal contempt under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. A compliance report, of

his having sealed the entire premises and having taken necessary action to prevent sale of liquor therefrom, shall be submitted by the fourth-

respondent in the Registry latest by 28th July, 2020.

Registry shall also make available copies of the report of the learned Additional District Judge, by that date i.e. 28.07.2020, to the learned counsel

for the parties. Objections to the report if any, and the fourth-respondent’s reply to the show cause, shall be submitted to this Court within three

weeks from today.

List the matter after three weeks.

Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by 25.07.2020.