Court Upholds Order Relocating Liquor Shop for Public Interest

The court upheld the District Excise Officer's order to relocate a country liquor shop from a residential area following complaints of nuisance and public sentiment. Emphasizing public interest and adherence to distance restrictions under the U.P. Excise Rules, the court deemed the relocation lawful, considering the adverse effects on residents and the absence of statutory violations by the shop. The decision highlighted the importance of public sentiment and interest in such matters, supporting the relocation as a measure to address community concerns without canceling the shop's license.

---

---

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.

---