2016 (12) TMI 1250 - HC - Indian Laws

Prohibition to licences for the sale of liquor along National and State Highways - constitutional validity of explanation appended to Rule 289(2)stating such part of National Highway or State Highway which are situated within the limits of any Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Town Committee, shall not be treated as restriction - Held that - The Supreme Court very recently has directed that all States and Union Territories shall forthwith cease or desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along National and State Highways and the prohibition shall also extend to and include stretches of such Highways which fall within the limits of a Municipal Corporation, City, Town or Local Authority. It is thus clear that the State Government is completely debarred from granting licences for the sale of liquor along National and State Highways including the stretches of such Highways which fall within the limits of Municipal Corporation, City, Town or Local Authority. We, accordingly, finally dispose of this writ petition with a recommendation to the State Government to immediately re-examine the impugned explanation in the light of above mentioned SC order. Also the petitioner has no choice, but to close his liquor shop on the State Highway.

Summary

Issues:
1. Constitutional validity of the explanation appended to Rule 289(2) regarding location restrictions for liquor shops near highways.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of an explanation appended to Rule 289(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 2016, which specified restrictions on the location of liquor shops near highways. The rule prohibited granting licenses for retail sale of liquor within 100 meters of the midpoint of any National or State Highway. The State Government had issued an order declaring all licensed premises of retail Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) shops within the restricted distance closed due to non-compliance with the High Court's earlier order. A previous writ petition challenging a similar order had been dismissed. The petitioner argued that the explanation unfairly exempted IMFL shops within certain municipal limits from the distance restriction, leading to unreasonable classification among similar establishments.

The High Court referred to a recent Supreme Court order directing all states to cease granting liquor licenses along National and State Highways, extending the prohibition to areas within municipal limits. In light of this directive, the High Court recommended the State Government to re-examine the disputed explanation in Rule 289(2). The Court emphasized that the State Government was prohibited from granting liquor licenses along highways, including areas within municipal limits. Consequently, the petitioner was instructed to close their liquor shop located on the State Highway. The Court ordered a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Chief Secretary of Assam for compliance with the Supreme Court's directive.

Overall, the judgment addressed the constitutional validity of the explanation in Rule 289(2) concerning the location of liquor shops near highways. It highlighted the need for compliance with the Supreme Court's directive to cease granting liquor licenses along highways, extending to areas within municipal limits. The Court's recommendation to the State Government to re-evaluate the disputed explanation aimed at ensuring uniformity in the application of distance restrictions for liquor establishments, regardless of their location within different administrative boundaries.