2018 (2) TMI 1946 - HC - Indian Laws

Restraint on respondents from setting up or re-locating or granting licence to a liquor shop - Condition (9) of the conditions printed in Form F.L.2 under Rule 113(2) of the Pondicherry Excise Rules 1970 - HELD THAT - Public Interest Litigation is a new class of litigation which dilutes the concept of locus standi. In earlier times Courts entertained Litigations only if a person aggrieved came to the Court. Today when the attention of the Supreme Court or the High Courts is drawn to any patent illegality which affects the public in general or any particular group and/or groups of people the Courts intervene irrespective of the locus standi of the petitioner to initiate the proceedings. However Public Interest Litigation does not empower the Court to take over the functions of the Executive. The Court has to adjudicate and decide if there is any patent illegality in any action or inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities. If such action or inaction contravenes the human rights and/or constitutional rights and/or legal rights of any class of persons particularly persons who may not be able to approach the Courts then the Courts step in. However interference is restricted to the existence of an illegality in any action or inaction and/or to enforcement of a right. In the absence of contravention of any statutory rules or any binding judicial precedent there are nothing to interfere with the setting up of a liquor shop - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Restraining the setting up of a liquor shop at Madukkarai Village in Puducherry.

Analysis:
The writ petition sought to prevent the respondents from establishing a liquor shop in Madukkarai Village, Puducherry, citing public interest and the need to safeguard the peace and security of the general public, especially teenage girls and students. It was highlighted that there were already eight liquor shops in the area, raising concerns about the impact of adding a ninth shop on the local community. The petitioner's counsel referenced Condition (9) of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, emphasizing the need for specific facilities in liquor shops. The court acknowledged the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which allows courts to address matters affecting the public at large, even without a traditional 'locus standi.' However, the court clarified that PIL does not authorize judicial overreach into executive functions. The judgment emphasized that court intervention is limited to cases involving patent illegality or violations of rights, and cannot interfere in the absence of statutory breaches or binding precedents. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petition, stating that without contravention of rules or precedents, they could not prevent the establishment of the liquor shop, and no costs were awarded.