2017 (4) TMI 71 - SC - Indian Laws

Presence of liquor vends on national and state highways across the country - Held that - There are three areas where the rigors of the directions which have been issued by this Court may require to be suitably modulated without affecting the basic principle underlying the judgment. The first is in relation to limits of local bodies with a population of less than 20,000 people. In such areas, it has been urged before this Court that a state highway is the main thoroughfare area along which the township has developed in small clusters of 20,000 or less. Hence, the requirement of maintaining a distance of 500 metres from the outer edge of the highway or service lane may result in a situation where the entire local area may fall within the prohibited distance. We find some substance in the submission. We must emphatically clarify that even in such areas falling under local bodies with a population of less than 20,000, no licence for the sale of liquor should be issued along either a national or state highway or a service lane along the highway. Similarly, the sale of liquor should be from a point which is neither visible from a national or state highway or which is directly accessible from a national or state highway. However, in such a situation, the prohibited distance should in our view be restricted to 220 metres from the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway. We accordingly direct that the following paragraph shall be inserted, after direction (v) in paragraph 24 of the operative directions of this Court in the judgment dated 15 December 2016 namely In the case of areas comprised in local bodies with a population of 20,000 people or less, the distance of 500 metres shall stand reduced to 220 metres . The second area upon which we propose to issue a relaxation is in respect of direction (iii) contained in paragraph 24 of the judgment of this Court. This Court has directed that existing licences which have been renewed prior to the date of the order shall continue only until the term of the licence expires but not later than 1 April 2017. This was on the basis that the excise year ends on 31 March with the end of the financial year. This Court has been apprised during the course of hearing, that different states have different periods of operation for their excise years. Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel, urged that the implementation of the directions should be carried out so as to inflict minimum pain on the trade, which is not illegal. For instance, our attention has been drawn to the fact that the excise year in Telangana commences on 1 October and ends on 30 September of the following year. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the excise year is stated to end on 30 June. Licencees to whom licences have been allotted prior to the date of the judgment would have made their investments. The cut-off date of 1 April 2017 was intended to protect such individuals. However, some modification is warranted due to the prevalence of varying excise years. In our view, the ends of justice would be met by issuing the following direction in continuation of direction (iii) in paragraph 24 of the judgment of this Court In the case of those licences for the sale of liquor which have been renewed prior to 15 December 2016 and the excise year of the concerned state is to end on a date falling on or after 1 April 2017, the existing licence shall continue until the term of the licence expires but in any event not later than 30 September 2017 . No licence shall either be granted or renewed or shall remain in operation in violation of the direction of this Court beyond 30 September 2017. In the State of Tamil Nadu, liquor vends are operated by TASMAC which is a state owned entity. In the judgment of this Court, time until 1 April, 2017 was granted on the request of the State. Hence, we decline to grant any further extension to the State of Tamil Nadu. The third area is in relation to the States of Sikkim (argued by Shri A.K.Ganguly, learned senior counsel) and Meghalaya which have moved this Court for a suitable modification of the judgment having regard to the nature of the hilly terrain. In relation to the State of Sikkim, this Court has been apprised on behalf of the State Government that nearly 82 per cent of the area of the state is forested and 92 per cent of the shops will have to be closed as a result of the directions of this Court. Similarly, the State of Meghalaya has placed before this Court peculiar conditions prevailing in the State as a result of the hilly terrain. We are of the view that insofar as the States of Meghalaya and Sikkim are concerned, it would suffice if the two states are exempted only from the application of the 500 metre distance requirement provided in paragraph 24(v)(iii) of the judgment of this Court on 15 December 2016. Insofar as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, we are of the view that the exemption which has been granted earlier in respect of areas falling under local bodies with a population of 20,000 will sufficiently protect the interests of the State. No further relaxation is granted over and above what has already been stated in that regard.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Presence of liquor vends on national and state highways.
2. Extension of time for compliance with the Supreme Court's directions.
3. Modification or recalling of the Supreme Court's judgment.
4. Constitutional power under Article 142.
5. State excise rules and their distances for liquor vends.
6. Impact of the judgment on municipal areas.
7. Revenue loss to states and individual hardships.
8. Recommendations of the Expert Committee.
9. Exemptions for states with hilly terrain.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Presence of Liquor Vends on National and State Highways:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of liquor vends on highways due to the high rate of road accidents caused by drunken driving. The Court cited the consistent policy of the Union Government to curb drunken driving and remove liquor vends on national highways. The Court concluded that there is no justification to allow liquor vends on state highways while prohibiting them on national highways. Consequently, the Court issued directions to cease granting licenses for liquor sales along highways and within 500 meters from the outer edge of the highway.

2. Extension of Time for Compliance:
Several applications sought an extension of time for compliance with the Court's directions. The Court heard arguments extensively and considered submissions from states and private parties who were not part of the original proceedings. The Court allowed an extension until 30 September 2017 for states with different excise years, except for Tamil Nadu, which was denied further extension beyond 1 April 2017.

3. Modification or Recalling of the Judgment:
The Court considered whether any modification to the judgment was warranted. Arguments were made regarding the impact on municipal areas, revenue loss, and individual hardships. The Court decided to provide certain relaxations, such as reducing the prohibited distance to 220 meters for local bodies with a population of less than 20,000. However, the Court maintained the prohibition of liquor vends visible or directly accessible from highways.

4. Constitutional Power Under Article 142:
The Attorney General argued that the judgment transgressed the limitations of Article 142 by interfering with state excise rules. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the judgment was based on the Union Government's policy, National Road Safety Council decisions, and advisories issued over a decade. The Court emphasized that the directions were in public interest to curb drunken driving and did not constitute judicial policy-making.

5. State Excise Rules and Their Distances for Liquor Vends:
The Court noted that state excise rules prescribe varying distances for liquor vends from highways. However, the Court held that the 500-meter distance requirement was necessary to prevent the ready availability of liquor to highway users. The Court clarified that no individual has a vested right to obtain a liquor license, and trading in liquor is a privilege conferred by the state.

6. Impact of the Judgment on Municipal Areas:
The Court considered submissions that the 500-meter prohibition would cause hardship in municipal areas where state highways intersect. The Court maintained that no exemption should be provided for such segments, as it would defeat the policy's purpose. The Court allowed states to grant licenses in areas other than along highways and the 500-meter buffer distance.

7. Revenue Loss to States and Individual Hardships:
The Court acknowledged the concerns about revenue loss and individual hardships. However, it emphasized that public health and safety take precedence over trade in liquor. The Court allowed existing licenses renewed before 15 December 2016 to continue until the end of the excise year but no later than 30 September 2017.

8. Recommendations of the Expert Committee:
The Court rejected the submission to adopt the Expert Committee's recommendation of a 100-meter distance, stating that it would not serve the purpose of preventing access to liquor near highways. The Court maintained the 500-meter distance requirement.

9. Exemptions for States with Hilly Terrain:
The Court granted exemptions to Sikkim and Meghalaya from the 500-meter distance requirement due to their hilly terrain. However, the Court did not grant further relaxations to Himachal Pradesh beyond the exemption for local bodies with a population of less than 20,000.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the batch of Interlocutory Applications, maintaining the core directions of its judgment dated 15 December 2016, with specific relaxations as outlined. The judgment emphasized the importance of public health and safety over the trade in liquor and upheld the prohibition of liquor vends along national and state highways.