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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the direction to relocate a country liquor shop from a residential area was valid in law.
Analysis: The shop was situated close to a newly developed residential building and complaints were made regarding nuisance and public inconvenience. The renewal of the licence was treated as a fresh grant, attracting the distance restriction under Rule 5(4) of the U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2008. The Court held that public interest was a relevant and important consideration in regulating the location of a country liquor shop, and that no person has a fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor in a manner contrary to lawful restrictions and residential convenience.
Conclusion: The order directing relocation of the shop was upheld and the petition was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the relocation direction failed because the excise authority acted within the permissible regulatory framework and in furtherance of public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: Regulation of the location of a country liquor shop in a residential area is permissible in public interest, and renewal of the licence may attract the applicable distance restrictions as a fresh grant.