Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recalled its March 20, 2023 order to close down all liquor shops within 150 meters from educational institutions and others in Puducherry.

Court noted that the order it relied upon the 2017 judgment which was subsequently modified, allowing the state government to determine distance requirement, if the areas fell in municipal and local limits.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said that the order has to be reviewed and recalled as it took note of the judgment passed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors Vs K Balu & Anr (2017) that no liquor shop could be situated within a distance of 500 meters of the outer edge of national or State highway or of a service lane along the highway.

The apex court had on March 20, 2023 come to the conclusion that the relocation of the liquor shop within 150 meters from a temple, mosque and educational institution was in the teeth of the directions issued by this Court in K Balu.

Attorney General R Venkatramani for Puducherry government and others argued for review of the order.

It was submitted that the judgment of this court on March 20, 2023, which relied on the judgment in K Balu, has not taken into account subsequent orders passed by this court modifying the restriction of 500 meters. 

On December 15, 2016, the Supreme Court's three-judge bench had directed no shop for sale of liquor shall be situated within 500 metre of outer edge of national or state highway or service lane along with the highway.

Subsequently, on March 31, 2017, another three-judge bench of this court, inter alia, considered whether a relaxation of the distance of 500 meters was warranted in relation to the limits of local bodies with a population of less than 20,000 people. It clarified that the prohibited distance within the limits of local bodies with a population of less than 20,000 people should be restricted to 220 meters of the outer edge of a national or State highway or of a service lane along the highway. Consequently, the court directed that in the case of areas comprised in local bodies with a population of 20,000 people or less, the distance of 500 meters shall stand reduced to 220 meters.

Thereafter on July 11, 2017, in case of 'Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr', which arose from Chandigarh, this court further clarified that “The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15-12-2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in proximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivity between cities, town and villages."

"The order does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We have considered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at rest any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs, before the Court," the bench had then said.

Finally, on February 23, 2018, the court further issued a clarification indicating that the state governments would not stand precluded from determining whether the principle which was laid down in the order of July 11, 2017 in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh, should also apply to areas covered by local self-governing bodies and statutory development authorities and the expression ‘municipal areas’ in that order would not prevent the state governments from taking appropriate decisions consistent with the orders passed by the court.

In its order on review petitions, the bench noted the original order of December 15, 2016 in K Balu which prescribed an inflexible distance requirement of 500 meters from the outer edge of a national or state highway has since been clarified in the subsequent orders of this court.

"Evidently, the judgment of this Court dated 20 March 2023, which is sought to be reviewed, did not notice the subsequent orders possibly because they were not drawn to the attention of the court," the bench said.

The court thus declared the March 20, 2023 order has to be reviewed and recalled.

"It is necessary to note that the restrictions which were introduced by this Court in K Balu, were in the context of national and State highway. As clarified subsequently, where the area in question falls within municipal or local limits, the distance requirements which are spelt out in the applicable Rules or Regulations would have to be complied with," the bench said.

The March 20, 2023 judgment affixed 150 meters from educational institutions and others as the benchmark for establishing wine shops.

The plea filed by the Union Territory of Puducherry as well as a liquor establishment viz Premier Wines contended that the judgement caused confusion and stress to all the existing wine shop establishments with the threat of imminent closure.

The main grievance of petitioners was that the judgement by Justice M R Shah (since retired) by following the K Balu's 2016 order --fixing 500 metres as distance from national and state highways for liquor shops-- directed closure of the wine shop, while ignoring the subsequent orders passed by the Supreme Court in K Balu's case itself. 

They claimed the Supreme Court has subsequently diluted and clarified that the distance rule in a municipal area will be determined by the state government only. 

The Puducherry government claimed it had determined the distance to be 50 metres. In the case under review, the UT administration had also cleared the location of the wine shop for being within permissible limits since it was outside 50 metres. 

The review petitioners contended that the judgement was based on an error apparent on the face of the record, both on law and on facts, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.

"This court has been misled by applying the ratio of the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs K Balu (2016). This court, through one of its subsequent directions in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh vs Union Territory of Chandigarh & Another (2018), made it clear that the order passed in K Balu does not prohibit licensed liquor establishments within municipal areas," one of plea filed through advocate Vipin Nair had said.