TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the State could lawfully increase and settle new liquor shops in exercise of its excise policy notwithstanding Article 47 and the claimed infringement of Article 19(1)(g); (ii) Whether the decision to open additional shops in Kanpur Nagar was arbitrary or contrary to the 15% policy ceiling; (iii) Whether the challenge to the proposed location of new shops within 500 metres of existing shops was premature; (iv) Whether advance notice/intimation to existing licence holders was mandatory before inviting applications for the new shops.
Issue (i): Whether the State could lawfully increase and settle new liquor shops in exercise of its excise policy notwithstanding Article 47 and the claimed infringement of Article 19(1)(g).
Analysis: Trade in potable liquor is not a fundamental right. The State has the power to regulate, restrict and even create a monopoly in liquor trade, and may part with that privilege for revenue purposes. Article 47 does not prohibit the State from opening or settling liquor shops; prohibition is only one mode of regulating intoxicating liquor, and the State may adopt other reasonable methods consistent with law.
Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 47 and Article 19(1)(g) failed and was against the petitioners.
Issue (ii): Whether the decision to open additional shops in Kanpur Nagar was arbitrary or contrary to the 15% policy ceiling.
Analysis: The material showed that the proposal to increase shops was preceded by district-level reports and surveys. The 15% figure in the excise policy operated as an overall enabling guideline for the State level, and additional shops beyond that limit could be sanctioned with Government approval. The record did not establish that the action was taken without basis or in violation of the policy.
Conclusion: The decision to open additional shops was not held arbitrary, and this issue was decided against the petitioners.
Issue (iii): Whether the challenge to the proposed location of new shops within 500 metres of existing shops was premature.
Analysis: Only the localities had been identified and the actual boundaries of the new shops had not yet been fixed. The applicable location rules would operate at the stage of final demarcation, when objections could still be raised before the competent authority. In the absence of final location fixation, a violation of the distance norm could not be assumed.
Conclusion: The objection regarding the 500-metre rule was premature and was rejected.
Issue (iv): Whether advance notice/intimation to existing licence holders was mandatory before inviting applications for the new shops.
Analysis: Section 24-A(3) required advance intimation to prospective applicants by way of wide publicity, not individual notice to existing licence holders. The excise policy was published, made available on the website and in the office, and the settlement schedule was publicly notified. The statutory requirement of notice was thus satisfied.
Conclusion: No individual prior notice was required, and this contention was decided against the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were found to lack merit because the State's power to settle liquor shops was validly exercised, the policy challenge failed, and the complaints regarding distance and notice were not established.
Ratio Decidendi: Trade in liquor is a State privilege, not a fundamental right, and liquor-shop settlement may be regulated through policy and wide publicity so long as the action is not discriminatory or arbitrary.
TaxTMI 
