Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 126 - HC - Indian LawsRelocation of the Liquor Shop - Rule 5 sub-rule (4) of U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops (Fourth Amendment ) Rules, 2008 Held that - In order to respect the public sentiment which was expressed by the flat owners of the building, who have objections to the location of the shop an inspection was made - The District Excise Officer was, thereafter, directed to re-locate any shop - The license of the shop is renewed every year - Every renewal amounts to fresh grant and thus, the restriction applicable under sub rule (4) of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules in respect of the distance namely, 100 Mts. from the residential locality, would be attracted in the present case - The District Excise Officer, thus did not allow the renewal of the petitioner s shop close to the building. There was no error in the order of the District Excise Officer, Allahabad, directing the shop to be re-located by the order which is within the parameters of law - The public interest is an important factor for relocation of country liquor shop - No one has a fundamental right to trade in country liquor which is by its nature a dangerous and obnoxious trade - The country liquor shop in a residential locality causes bad odour, makes an entire area unhygienic and attracts bad elements of the area to assemble at odd hours - The families living in neighborhood with children and women find it difficult to live with a country liquor shop in the vicinity - The District Excise Officer did not commit any illegality in accepting in public protest - He has not cancelled the license - The petitioner has only been asked to relocate the shop Decided against Petitioner.
Issues:
1. Validity of the order directing the relocation of a country liquor shop in a residential area. 2. Application of distance restrictions under Rule 5 sub-rule (4) of U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2008. 3. Consideration of public sentiment and public interest in the relocation decision. 4. Impact of the existence of a multi-storied residential building near the liquor shop. 5. Legality of the District Excise Officer's decision and the absence of cancellation of the license. Analysis: 1. The judgment addressed the validity of an order requiring the relocation of a country liquor shop situated in a public area within a residential locality. The District Excise Officer issued the directive following a complaint from a welfare society citing nuisance caused by the shop. The petitioner contested the order, arguing that public sentiment alone cannot justify relocation without violating any statutory provisions. The counsel highlighted the shop's valid licensing status for the past five years and emphasized the absence of any breaches under the Excise Act or Regulations. 2. The court examined the application of distance restrictions specified in Rule 5 sub-rule (4) of the U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2008. The rule prohibits licensing liquor shops within a certain distance from places like public worship sites, schools, hospitals, or residential colonies. It was noted that the renewal of the shop's license annually constituted a fresh grant, triggering the 100-meter distance restriction from residential areas. The District Excise Officer's decision to deny renewal based on this rule was deemed lawful. 3. In considering public sentiment and interest, the court acknowledged the complaints from residents of a newly constructed multi-storied residential building near the liquor shop. The presence of objections from flat owners and the adverse impact on public sentiment prompted the relocation order. The court upheld the decision, emphasizing that public interest is a crucial factor in relocating a country liquor shop, especially in residential areas. 4. The judgment highlighted the adverse effects of having a country liquor shop in a residential locality, including odour, unhygienic conditions, and the attraction of undesirable elements. The court recognized the difficulties faced by families, particularly women and children, residing near such establishments. The proximity of the shop to the residential building further justified the relocation decision in line with public interest and sentiment. 5. Finally, the court dismissed the petitioner's claims, affirming the legality of the District Excise Officer's order to relocate the shop. Emphasizing that trading in country liquor is not a fundamental right and is inherently risky and objectionable, the court supported the decision as a measure to address public concerns without canceling the license. The judgment concluded that the relocation directive was lawful within the confines of the law and public interest considerations.
|