2017 (7) TMI 1340 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways - validity of notification dated 16 March 2017 - HELD THAT - The High Court has noticed that the original notification dated 21 October 2005 was not of a statutory nature and its purpose was only to make an internal arrangement to assign responsibility for maintenance of roads. By classifying certain roads as state highways, the responsibility for maintenance and development was vested in Chandigarh Administration - Since funds were being received from the Central Road Fund, in order to utilise these funds for the maintenance of roads, certain internal roads which pass through the city were declared as state highways in addition to National Highway No 21 which passes through Chandigarh. The High Court observed that these roads are in fact inter-sectoral roads, connecting sectors into which the city is divided. However, even after the notification dated 16 March 2017, National Highway no 21 which passes through the city is as it is. So also is the case with Madhya Marg which passes through the city and connects Panchkula in the State of Haryana and Mullanpur in the State of Punjab. Madhya Marg continues to be a state highway. On these findings, the High Court did not find substance in the challenge and dismissed the writ petition. The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15 December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in proximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order does not 5 prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of directions issued in a previous judgment regarding the sale of liquor along highways.
2. Challenge to a notification reclassifying roads in Chandigarh from state highways to major district roads.
3. Consideration of the purpose and applicability of the previous judgment on the reclassification of roads within a city.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court previously issued directions in a judgment to prevent dangers from drunken driving on highways, including prohibiting the sale of liquor along national and state highways. The directions emphasized the prohibition of liquor sale visibility from highways, removal of liquor advertisements, and strict enforcement by state authorities. The judgment aimed to ensure safety on highways by restricting the availability of alcohol in highway proximity.

2. In the present case concerning Chandigarh, a notification reclassified major arterial roads as major district roads, excluding National Highway no. 21 and Madhya Marg. The High Court rejected a challenge to this notification, stating that the roads were inter-sectoral and primarily meant for internal connectivity within the city. The reclassification did not violate the previous judgment's directives as it focused on highways connecting different regions rather than internal city roads.

3. The Supreme Court clarified that the previous judgment targeted liquor sale control along highways facilitating inter-city connectivity, not internal city roads like those in Chandigarh. The reclassification of Chandigarh roads did not contradict the judgment's purpose, as it did not affect highways like National Highway no. 21 and Madhya Marg. The Court emphasized that the prohibition on liquor sale along highways did not extend to licensed establishments within municipal areas, providing clarity for similar cases in other areas.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the reclassification of Chandigarh roads, as it did not contravene the directions in the previous judgment regarding liquor sale control along highways. The Court's clarification aimed to prevent ambiguity and unnecessary legal interventions, ensuring the effective implementation of the directives issued in the earlier judgment.