Liquor – Sale of – In the order passed by Supreme Court on 11.7.2017, it was observed that the purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15.12.2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in the proximity of highways, which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages – The order did not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas – This Court further clarified in the order that it will govern other municipal areas as well – In the subsequent order dated 13.12.2017, liberty was granted to the licence holders to submit a representation to the state government that the same principle should apply to the licensed establishments of the petitioners, as they applied to municipal areas – Having regard to these directions, the state governments would not be precluded from determining whether the principle which has been laid down by this Court in order dated 11.7.2017 should also apply to areas covered by local self-governing bodies and statutory development authorities – It is a question of fact as to whether an area covered by a local self-governing body is proximate to a municipal agglomeration or is sufficiently developed as to warrant the application of the same principle – In deciding as to whether the principle which has been set down in the order dated 11.7.2017 should be extended to a local self-governing body (or statutory development authority) the state governments would take recourse to all relevant circumstances including the nature and extent of development in the area and the object underlying the direction prohibiting the sale of liquor on national and the state highways – The use of the expression ‘municipal areas’ in order dated 11.7.2017 does not prevent the state governments from making that determination and from taking appropriate decisions consistent with the object of the orders passed by this Court – It is left open to individual licensees to submit their representations to the competent authorities in the state governments if they are so advised upon which appropriate decisions may be taken by the state governments – MAs/IAs disposed of.
State of Tamil Nadu v. K Balu [2016] 11 SCR 244 : (2017) 2 SCC 281; Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh SLP (C)
No.10243 of 2017; APSRTC v. Abdul Kareem [2007]
1 SCR 888 : (2007) 2 SCC 466; Cine Exhibitions
Private Limited v Collector, District Gwalior (2012) 6 SCC 698; Hotel Sonai Beer Bar and Permit Room v State of Maharashtra SLP (C)No 19845/2017 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.