Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Kerala vs B.Surendra Das Etc. on 5 March, 2014
"B
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3196-98/2014
(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.26241-26243/2012)
State of Kerala & Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
B. Surendra Das Etc. ... Respondents
WITH
C.A. Nos. 3199-3218/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.27163-27182 OF 2012
C.A. No. 3219/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25725 OF 2012
C.A. No. 3220/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.24414 OF 2012
C.A. No. 3221/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.38251 OF 2012
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.449 OF 2012
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.450 OF 2012
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.20 OF 2013
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.18 OF 2013
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.19 OF 2013
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.431 OF 2012
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.432-444 OF 2012
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.5 OF 2013
C.A. No. 3222/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.11004 OF 2013
C.A. No.3223/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.14956 OF 2013
C.A. No. 3224/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.14958 OF 2013
C.A. No. 3225/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.14959 OF 2013
C.A. No. 3226/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.14960 OF 2013
C.A. No. 3227/2014 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.14961 OF 2013
J U D G E M E N T
H.L. Gokhale J.
Leave granted
2. This group of Civil Appeals raises the questions with respect
to the legality and validity of two amendments introduced by the first
appellant-State of Kerala, in pursuance of its Abkari Policy framed in 2011-
2012, in the Foreign Liquor Rules framed under the Kerala Abkari Act, since
those amendments have been struck down as unconstitutional by the impugned
judgment and order rendered by the High Court of Kerala.
3. Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules governs the grant of
licences for the sale of the Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (’IMFL’ for
short). The two amendments which are disputed are as follows:-
(i) Firstly, the words ’three star’ were omitted from Rule 13(3) of these
rules by Government of Kerala by issuing notification dated 9.12.2011.
Consequently, after this amendment of the rule which has come into force
immediately, three star hotels not already having a licence, will not be
eligible to get a bar licence for retail sale of liquor in the hotels.
Thus, no new hotels having the three star classification will be issued the
licence known as FL-3 licence for selling the IMFL. The hotels having the
two star or lesser classification are already ineligible to get this
licence by virtue of the pre-existing proviso to Rule 13(3), introduced by
notification dated 20.12.2002.
(ii) Secondly, Rule (3E) has been added in this Rule 13 w.e.f. 27.3.2012
by issuing a notification of even date, whereby no new bar hotels of any
classification will be permitted to be opened (a) if they are situated
within a distance of 3 kms. from existing bar hotels in a panchayat area,
and (b) within a distance of 1 km. from existing bar hotels in a municipal
area.
4. The avowed object of this Abkari Policy is to curb the rampant
alcoholism in the State of Kerala, which claims to have the highest
consumption of alcohol as against the other states in India, and whereby
the younger generation is getting addicted. Thus, the objective is in
pursuance of Article 47 of the Constitution of India which declares it to
be a Directive Policy for the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition
of consumption of intoxicating drinks. These two amendments were
challenged by the respondents in the Kerela High Court on the touchstone of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as being arbitrary,
discriminatory, irrational, excessive, and even malafide. It is contended
by them that the amendments will not succeed in achieving the objectives
for which they have been introduced. On the contrary, the two amendments
will affect the other objective of the policy of the State of Kerala viz.
to encourage and increase tourism in the State.
5. The respondent No.1, B. Surendra Das, was one such person who
filed a Writ Petition, bearing Writ Petition (C) No.5650/2012, to challenge
the denial of the FL-3 licence to his three star hotel on the basis of the
first amendment effected by notification dated 9.12.2011. The writ
petition was dismissed by a Single Judge by his judgment and order dated
7.3.2012. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, he preferred
Writ Appeal No.470/2012. Some other persons whose writ petitions were
rejected, filed similar Writ Appeals. The distance rule introduced with
the addition of Rule (3E) in Rule 13 w.e.f. 27.3.2012 was also challenged
by some other persons by filing Writ Petitions directly to the Division
Bench. All these Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions were allowed by a
Division Bench of the High Court by its common judgment and order dated
27.7.2012, which struck down the two amendments as unconstitutional. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment and order, these appeals have been filed by
the appellant-State of Kerala and its concerned officers of the Excise
Department.
Abkari Policy of the Government of Kerala for the year
2011-2012:-
6. Before we deal with the impugned judgment and the amendments,
we must first refer to the Abkari Policy of the Government of Kerala which
led to the two disputed amendments to Rule 13. The Government of Kerala
announced the Abkari Policy on 17.8.2011. In the second sub-para of the
very first paragraph of this policy, the Government noted as follows:-
"This Government views with serious concern the rising trend of
alcoholism and the consequential social issues arising in the
Kerala society. Strong feelings against this have been
emanating from the civil society. Fully realising, Government
intends to formulate a stringent Abkari Policy."
7. The notable features of this policy were as follows:-
"a. The Government noted the rising trend of alcoholism in
the state and its consequences.
b. Clarified that it did not wish to view the liquor business
as a source of revenue.
c. Noted that as a prelude to forming its Abkari Policy,
detailed discussions were held with stakeholders, such as
trade-unions in the Toddy/IMFL sector, bar-owners,
distilleries and brewers, anti-liquor organizations,
NGOs/individuals running de-addiction centers, religious
heads. Etc.
d. For IMFL the following yard-sticks were imposed
(i) A condition insisting on a distance of 3 km and 1 km
from existing bar hotels in panchayats and
municipalities respectively.
(ii) From 1.4.2012 bar licences would be granted only
to hotels having four- star and above classification.
(iii) From the 2013-2014 financial year onwards Bar-
licences would be granted only to five star hotels etc.
e. Further, impositions were as follows:
(i) The age limit for buying and selling alcohol was
increased.
(ii) The maximum limit of alcohol possession was
reduced.
(iii) The working hours of bars were altered and
restricted to 8 am to 11 pm in panchayats and 9 am to 12 pm
in corporation areas."
The relevant Foreign Liquor Rule 13(3):-
8. As a consequence of this policy the two amendments were brought
in, firstly the denial of fresh licences to three star hotels by the
amending notification dated 9.12.2011, and secondly the distance rule by
the notification dated 27.3.2012. Relevant portion of Rule 13(3) reads as
follows:-
"13. Licences for possession, use or sale:- Licences for the
possession and sale of foreign liquor or for possession or use
of foreign liquor shall be of the following descriptions and in
the forms appended hereto.
xxx xxx xxx
3) Foreign Liquor 3 Hotels (Restaurant) Licence:- Licence in
this form may be issued by the Excise Commissioner under
orders of Government, in the interest of promotion of
tourism in the State, to hotels which have obtained (three
star)1, four star, five star, five star deluxe, heritage,
heritage grand or heritage classic classification from
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, where the
privilege of sale of foreign liquor in such hotels have
been purchased on payment of an annual rental of Rs.
22,00,000 (Rupees twenty two lakhs only). But no such
licence shall be issued to hotels which are located within
200 (two hundred) metres from an educational institution,
temple, church, mosque or burial ground. Hotels other than
those in the private sector having four star, five star,
five star deluxe classification will be exempted from the
distance restrictions in the interest of promotion of
tourism in the State. In the case of hotels in the private
sector of the above categories and hotels having heritage,
heritage grand and heritage classic classification issued
by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, no such
licence shall be issued if located within 50 (fifty) metres
from any educational institution, temple, church, mosque,
burial ground or scheduled caste/scheduled tribe colony.
The applicant shall produce from the Abkari Workers Welfare
Fund Inspector a certificate to the effect that he has
remitted before the date of application for the
licence/renewal of licence, the arrears of contributions,
if any, payable upto the 31st of December of the preceding
year.
The existing licencees who do not maintain two star standards will be
allowed time upto 31st March, 2007 to upgrade their standards to
two star. Their licence will be renewed till that date.
Failure to upgrade the standard of those hotels would lead to
cancellation of licence and forfeiture of rental paid by them.
Licencees shall have no claim for compensation. The applicant
shall produce from the Abkari Worker’s Welfare Fund Inspector a
certificate to the effect that he has remitted before the date
of application for the licence/renewal of licence, the arrears
of contribution, if any, payable upto 31st day of December
preceding year.
The question whether a hotel or restaurant confirms to the standard
of two star hotel shall be determined in accordance with the
specific issues for classification of star hotels issued by the
Department of Tourism and in case of doubt or dispute, the
decision of the Excise Commission shall be final.
The cost of liquor shall be billed along with the cost of meals. The
cost of liquor shall be shown separately in the bill and the
duplicate copies thereof shall be retained for inspection by the
Officers of the Excise Commission.
xxx xxx xxx
Provided also that such bar licences, having dispute on distance
rules and shifting outside Municipal Corporation area, including
those of Approved Restaurants, existing as on 1st April, 2004
shall be regularized.
(Fourth Proviso)
xxx xxx xxx
Provided further that all existing licences not having the above
classification and are functional as on 31st March, 2007 shall
be regularized.
(Sixth Proviso)
Provided also that all FL-3 licences not having the requisite star
classification and are functional during 2009-2010 shall be
regularized.
(Seventh Proviso)
xxx xxx xxx
(3B) No liquor shall be sold under FL-3 licences for removal outside
the hotel to anyone including the residents of the hotel:
Provided that the liquor may be sold and served to the residents of
the hotel in the rooms where they reside or in the restaurant
where they partake food, if such hotels have restaurants
exclusively for the use of families and others where no liquor
shall be served:
Provided further that the holder of an FL-3 licence may serve liquor
along with meals by the side of swimming pools and in the lawns
and roof gardens of the hotel if he obtains a special permit for
the purpose from the Commissioner of Excise, on payment of
additional annual rental of [Rs. 50,000(Rupees Fifty Thousand
only)].
Provided also that for serving liquor at restaurants to persons other
than residents, the licencee shall pay an additional annual fee
of [Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)].
xxx xxx xxx
(3E) 2 Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, no new FL-
3 licence shall be granted to hotels which are located within a
radius of three kilometers in Grama Panchayat and one kilometer
in Municipal Corporation/City Corporation, from another hotel
having an FL-3 licence granted under this rule].
1. Deleted by impugned Amendment of 2011.
2. Introduced by impugned Amendment of 2012."
Judgment of the Single Judge:-
9. The learned single Judge who heard the matter concerning the
denial of licences to new three star hotels held that there was no vested
right to get a licence, leave aside any Fundamental Right. It was held
that there was no element of discrimination, nor that of legitimate
expectation. He also held that the unamended rule cannot be applied once
the amendment comes into force, and therefore rejected the petition.
Judgment of the Division Bench:-
10. The Division Bench, on the other hand, noted in paragraph 5 of
its judgment the submission of the respondents that although there was no
Fundamental Right to carry on business in liquor, as held in Khoday
Distilleries Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1995 (1) SCC
574, once the State permits such a trade, it has to make rules and permit
the business without any arbitrariness or discrimination, and in conformity
with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It also noted the
submissions of the respondents that they have made huge investments, and
many of them had earned the classification of heritage hotels from the
Ministry of Tourism, Government of Kerala. They also challenged the 4th,
and particularly 6th and 7th proviso of this rule. The 6th proviso
regularized the licences as functioning on 31.3.2007. The 7th proviso
regularized those licences functioning during 2009-2010. It was submitted
that if such hotels, although not conforming to the statutory requirements,
were to be tolerated, how can the distance rule be applied to deny licences
to hotels having three star, four star or higher classification, which meet
the prescribed criteria, by measuring distances from such hotels which do
not meet minimum standards of health and hygiene?
11. The Division Bench noted that when it comes to the wholesale
business in liquor in the State, there was a complete monopoly of the State
Government in as much as the business was in the hands of 3 entities, (1)
Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited,
(2) Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and (3) Kerala State Co-
operative Consumer Marketing Federation Limited. The Court noted that all
these 3 Government companies were together running around 400 shops, in the
State having FL1 licenses. The shops with these licenses sell liquor, in
the form of unopened bottles, which is not to be consumed on the premises.
These are the shops which have the highest sale of liquor, and the
consequence of it in any case is the high consumption of liquor. The Court
also noted that the Government earned huge revenue from this sale, and the
State Government’s annual collection was over 7000 crores. If these sales
by the shops run by the State are to be permitted, why should the privately
owned restaurants and bars not be permitted to vend liquor?
12. The Division Bench was of the view that whereas on the one
hand, the policy of the State perpetuated the monopoly of the existing
hotels having three star or higher classification, on the other hand by
preventing new star hotels from coming up, it would encourage consumption
of spurious liquor. The Court was of the view that there was no
distinction between the existing three star hotels and the new three star
hotels, to be opened. Besides most of these hotels were set up in areas
where there was a thriving tourism business like the Kovalam Beach near
Thiruvanantapuram. The decision to set up hotels ought to be left to the
hoteliers. The State Government will defeat the tourism policy by
introducing, by amendment, the distance rule. For all these reasons the
Court held that the two amendments were discriminatory, and will not
achieve the policy which they intended to achieve. The Court, therefore,
held the two amendments to be bad in law and unconstitutional.
13. Learned senior counsel, Mr. V. Giri assisted by Mr. Ramesh
Babu, learned counsel, has appeared for the appellants. He has been
supported by Mr. P.K. Bali, learned senior counsel appearing for the Kerala
Pradesh Madhya Virudh Samithy (i.e. committee opposing consumption of
liquor in the area of Kerala). Senior counsel Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Chander
Udai Singh, Krishnan Venugopal and others have appeared for the respondents
and the interveners.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants:-
14. The principal submission of Mr. Giri, as well as Mr. Bali, has
been that the consumption of liquor is the highest in the State of Kerala,
as compared to all other states in India. Chronic diseases are on the rise
due to the excessive consumption of alcohol. The amendments in Rule 13(3)
of the Foreign Liquor Rules are effected to bring in force the Abkari
Policy of the Government, with a view to bring down the sale and
distribution of liquor within the State. Mr. Giri highlighted the
objectives of the Abkari Policy framed from the year 2011-2012 (These
objectives have already been referred to in paragraph 7 above). It was
submitted that trading in liquor is not a Fundamental Right as held in
Khoday Distilleries (supra), and the effect of the policy decision taken by
the State is to be considered having regard to the provisions contained in
Article 47 of the Constitution of India, as also the power of the State to
regulate and control the trade in liquor in terms of the provisions of the
Abkari Act.
15. It was pointed out by Mr. Giri that the revised policy was
introduced by the Government foreseeing the ill effects of increase in the
consumption of liquor, and with the intention of reducing it in a phased
manner. The amendments have been brought about for that purpose as a part
of the social commitment to the public at large. The Abkari Policy has
been framed from 1992 onwards as follows:-
"(i) In 1992, with the intention of reducing the number of bar
hotels, Government decided to restrict grant of FL-3
Licences to only hotels having two star and above.
ii) By 1996 Abkari policy the Government decided to ban sale
of Arrack with effect from 01.04.1996.
iii) In 2002 as per the Abkari policy of 202, an amendment
was brought in the Rule restricting grant of FL-3
Licence to only hotels having 3 star and above
classification.
iv) In continuation of the policy of the Government to
reduce sale and distribution of Liquor, Abkari policy of
2011 was announced interalia restricting issue of FL-3
Licence to only having 4 star and above classification."
Thereafter, the distance rule has been brought in 2012 by adding Rule (3E)
in Rule 13. It was submitted that all these changes in the rules have been
made with the object of gradually reducing the sale and distribution of
liquor in the State.
16. Mr. Giri emphasized the observations in sub-para (c) and (d)
of para 60 of Khoday Distilleries (supra) to the following effect:-
"(c) Potable liquor as a beverage is an intoxicating and
depressant drink which is dangerous and injurious to health and
is, therefore, an article which is res extra commercium being
inherently harmful. A citizen has, therefore, no fundamental
right to do trade or business in liquor. Hence the trade or
business in liquor can be completely prohibited.
(d) Article 47 of the Constitution considers intoxicating drinks
and drugs as injurious to health and impeding the raising of
level of nutrition and the standard of living of the people and
improvement of the public health. It, therefore, ordains the
State to bring about prohibition of the consumption of
intoxicating drinks which obviously include liquor, except for
medicinal purposes. Article 47 is one of the Directive
Principles which is fundamental in the governance of the
country. The State has, therefore, the power to completely
prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, distribution and
consumption of potable liquor as a beverage, both because it is
inherently a dangerous article of consumption and also because
of the Directive Principle contained in Article 47, except when
it is used and consumed for medicinal purposes."
17. He then emphasized that this Hon’ble Court has also held in
Kuldip Singh vs. Government of NCT of Delhi reported in 2006 (5) SCC 702
that the right to carry on business in liquor is not a Fundamental Right,
and the policy decision of the Government in Abkari Matters, introduced
through amendment should not be easily interfered with, unless the
amendment is motivated by malafides, arbitrariness and discrimination.
18. Apart from these two leading judgments, he drew our attention
to another judgment of this Court in State of Kerala vs.
B. Six Holiday Resorts Private Limited reported in 2010 (5) SCC 186 when
this very Rule 13(3) was amended w.e.f. 1.4.2002, and grant of FL-3
licences to two star hotels was stopped. The challenge to this restriction
was repelled by this Court in the following words in paragraphs 30 and 31
of this judgment. These paragraphs read as follows:-
"30. Rule 13(3) provides for grant of licences to sell foreign
liquor in hotels (restaurants). It contemplates the Excise
Commissioner issuing licences under the orders of the State
Government in the interest of promotion of tourism in the State,
to hotels and restaurants conforming to standards specified
therein. It also provides for the renewal of such licences. The
substitution of the last proviso to Rule 13(3) by the
notification dated 20.2.2002 provided that no new licences under
the said Rule shall be issued. The proviso does not nullify the
licences already granted. Nor does it interfere with renewal of
the existing licences. It only prohibits grant of further
licences. The issue of such licences was to promote tourism in
the State. The promotion of tourism should be balanced with the
general public interest. If on account of the fact that
sufficient licences had already been granted or in public
interest, the State takes a policy decision not to grant further
licences, it cannot be said to defeat the Rules. It merely gives
effect to the policy of the State not to grant fresh licences
until further orders. This is evident from the explanatory note
to the amendment dated 20.2.2002. The introduction of the
proviso enabled the State to assess the situation and reframe
the excise policy.
31. It was submitted on behalf of the State Government that
Rule 13(3) was again amended with effect from 1.4.2002 to
implement a new policy. By the said amendment, the minimum
eligibility for licence was increased from Two-star
categorization to Three-Star categorization and the ban on issue
of fresh licences was removed by deleting the proviso which was
inserted by the amendment dated 20.2.2002. It was contended that
the amendments merely implemented the policies of the government
from time to time. There is considerable force in the contention
of the State. If the State on a periodical re-assessment of
policy changed the policy, it may amend the Rules by adding,
modifying or omitting any rule, to give effect to the policy. If
the policy is not open to challenge, the amendments to implement
the policy are also not open to challenge. When the amendment
was made on 20.2.2002, the object of the newly added proviso was
to stop the grant of fresh licences until a policy was
finalized."
19. It was, therefore, submitted by Mr. Giri that when a policy was
introduced with a good intention, after considering the serious problems in
the society, and after consulting all affected interests including the
hoteliers, there was no reason for the High Court to interfere therein by
calling it arbitrary or discriminatory. In this context he relied upon a
Constitution Bench Judgment in Khandige Sham Bhat and Ors. vs. The
Agricultural Income Tax Officer reported in AIR 1963 SC 591 wherein the
issue was with respect to the classification of State of Kerala into two
parts, i.e., the Madras area and the Travancore-Cochin area, for the
purpose of imposition of agricultural Income Tax. The petitioners had
contended that it had no rational nexus with the object of the Act, namely,
imposition of agricultural income-tax, for, as the two parts belong to the
same State, no post amalgamation law can treat assesses of the same State
differently in the matter of taxation. This Court, while dismissing the
Petitions, stated the following in para 11 of the judgment:
"The said discussion leads to the only conclusion that the
Legislature in its sincere attempt to meet a difficult situation
made a law adopting one of the diverse methods open to it and
even the method adopted cannot be said to be either unreasonable
or arbitrary, as the overall picture indicates that it works
fairly well on all similarly situated, though some hardship
may be caused to some in the implementation of the law which is
almost inevitable in every taxation law. We cannot, therefore,
say that in the present case the one method adopted instead of
another is either arbitrary or capricious."
He, further, submitted that if three star hotels are not to be issued FL-3
licences any more, that was as a part of the continuing policy of the
State, and the previous restriction of not issuing FL-3 licences to two
star hotels has already been upheld by this Court. That being so, the
amendment of Rule 13(3) omitting three star hotels by notification dated
9.12.2011 could not be faulted.
20. As far as the distance rule is concerned, Mr. Giri submitted
that there were already very large number of restaurants and liquor bars
having FL-3 licences spread over the State, in the Grama Panchayat and in
the municipal areas. The objective behind introducing the distance rule is
to prevent any more restaurants and bars selling liquor coming up in the
near vicinity of the existing ones. The existing restaurants and hotels
have caused sufficient damage to the younger generation, and it is to
prevent further damaging effects on the health of the society that the
subsequent amendments had been brought in, by introducing Rule (3E) in the
year 2012. The High Court should not have interfered, and held this added
rule as unconstitutional on the ground of alleged discrimination against
parties which had not set up their hotels as yet. The State was trying to
do its best in furtherance to the Directive Principle contained in Article
47 of the Constitution, and as Article 37 of the Constitution states, the
principles laid down in the Directive Principles are fundamental in the
governance of the country, and the State has the duty to apply them in
making the laws. He submitted that as held in Khoday Distilleries Ltd.
(supra) the correct way to describe the Fundamental Rights under Article
19(1) is to call them ’Qualified Fundamental Rights’. The right to
practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is subject to the
reasonable restrictions under sub-article (6) thereof, and there was no
reason to hold that the restrictions imposed under the present rules are in
any way unreasonable. Mr. Giri, referred to Section 69 of Kerala Abkari
Act, and submitted that the rules framed under the statute must be
considered as a part of the statute. They are on a higher pedestal as
against rules framed by notifications de hors any statute, and cannot be
challenged on the grounds as sought by the respondents. He referred to a
judgment of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd
& Ors. reported in 2005 (11) SCC 1 wherein the Constitution Bench held in
para 79 of that judgment that permissive privilege to deal in liquor is not
a right. He asked that if the step taken by the Government is in the right
direction and is a bonafide one, should the State be restricted from taking
such a step?
21. It was submitted by Mr. Giri that the decision of the
Government to deny FL-3 licences to new three star hotels does not operate
against the objective of tourism, and even under the Government of India
policy on tourism, it was not necessary for the three star hotels to have
the bar licence. He, however, stated that to begin with the Government be
allowed to act in public interest, and if at a later point in time it finds
that the decision requires reconsideration, it will review the decision.
The villagers are objecting to the new liquor shops coming up and so are
the organizations of women and social activists. The state cannot be
oblivious to the requirements of the citizens. The distance rule will
apply across the board, and no new licences will be given if any liquor
vending shop is sought to be set up within the prohibited distance. Mr.
Giri submitted that Article 14 is wrongly invoked in the present matter. It
should not be permitted to be invoked in matters of public policy and where
public interest was involved. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Javed and Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in 2003 (8) SCC 369 where this
Court was concerned with the prohibition imposed by Haryana Panchayat Raj
Act for people having more than two children from taking up office as a
member of Panchayat. This Court held in that matter that Fundamental Rights
are not to be read in isolation, and they have to be read alongwith the
Chapter on Directive Principles. Under Article 47 the State has the duty to
raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public
health. These aspects cannot be ignored. He thereafter referred to
paragraph 93 of the judgment of this Court in Balco Employees Union vs.
Union of India reported in 2002 (2) SCC 333 to submit that it is not for
the Court to decide the policy matters. The affected persons are women and
children also, and the State has taken steps to protect their interest.
22. The submissions of Mr. Giri were supported by learned senior
counsel Mr. Bali. He represented the earlier referred Kerala Pradesh
Madhya Virudha Samithy. It has filed a separate SLP challenging the
impugned judgment bearing No. 38251/2012. He drew our attention to various
judgments. The salient from amongst them are mentioned hereafter. Firstly
he referred to the judgment of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and
Ors. vs. Mc Dowell and Co. reported in 1996 (3) SCC 709, wherein a bench of
three Judges of this Court laid down:-
"43........A law made by the Parliament or the Legislature can
be struck down by Courts on two grounds and two grounds alone,
viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any
of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part-III of the
constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is no
third ground. We do not wish to enter into a discussion of the
concepts of procedural unreasonableness and substantive
unreasonableness concepts inspired by the decisions of United
States Supreme Court. Even in U.S.A., these concepts and in
particular the concept of substantive due process have proved to
be of unending controversy, the latest thinking tending towards a
severe curtailment of this ground (substantive due process). The
main criticism against the ground of substantive due process being
that it seeks to set up the courts as arbiters of the wisdom of
the Legislature in enacting the particular piece of legislation.
It is enough for us to say that by whatever name it is
characterised, the ground of invalidation must fall within the
four corners of the two grounds mentioned above. In other words,
say, if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it
can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the
equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein.
Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of
the fundamental rights guaranteed by Clauses (a) to (g) of Article
19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any
of the Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment
can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or
unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be
found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck
down on the ground that Court thinks it unjustified. The
Parliament and the Legislatures, composed as they are of the
representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware
of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The
Court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom......."
(emphasis supplied)
23. Thereafter, he referred to the judgment in M/s Ugar Sugar Works
Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration & Ors. reported in 2001 (3) SCC 635. That
was a case where a notification was issued laying down the terms and
conditions for registration of different brands of IMFL for supply within
the territory of Delhi on the basis of Minimum Sales Figures (MSF), as a
criterion of eligibility for grant of licence. It was challenged as
violating Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This Court held
that laying down the requirement for achieving minimum sale figure of a
particular brand of liquor in other States, as a mode for determination of
the acceptability of that brand of liquor, could not be held to be
irrelevant, irrational or unreasonable.
24. Mr. K. Padmanabhan Nair, learned senior counsel appeared for
respondent No. 3 in SLP No. 14956/2003. Respondent No. 3 is one
Shashidharan, a resident of a village in Distt. Thrissur. He is objecting
to a bar hotel being set up in his village, and his submission was that he
should be heard in case a licence is to be given to set up a hotel in that
village. He supported the policy of the State Government and the
submission of Mr. Giri and Mr. Bali.
Reply on behalf of the respondents:-
25. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that as can be seen from paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment,
the High Court has considered the relevant observations of this Court in
Khoday Distilleries (supra), wherein this Court has held that although
there is no right to carry on liquor business as a Fundamental right,
wherever it is permitted by the state, there should not be any room for
discrimination. It was submitted that this observation is supported by
paragraph 60(g) of the very judgment which reads as follows:-
"(g) When the State permits trade or business in the
potable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the
right to carry on trade or business subject to the limitations,
if any, and the State cannot make discrimination between the
citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business."
26. The judgment of this Court in State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal
& Ors. reported in 1986 (4) SCC 566 and particularly last part of paragraph
33 was pressed into service which reads as follows:-
"33......... No one can claim as against the State the
right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State
cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or
privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the
State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the
State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. It cannot act
arbitrarily or at its sweet will. It must comply with the
equality clause while granting the exclusive right or privilege
of manufacturing or selling liquor. It is, therefore, not
possible to uphold the contention of the State Government and
respondent Nos. 5-11 that Article 14 can have no application in
a case where the licence to manufacture or sell liquor is being
granted by the State Government. The State cannot ride roughshod
over the requirement of that Article."
27. The respondents submitted that the distance rule was clearly
going to affect the objectives of the tourism policy. This will not permit
setting up of any four star or five star hotels within the prohibited
distance even from hotels which do not meet the minimum standards of
health, hygiene and safety, and which have, on occasions, supplied spurious
liquor. They relied upon paragraph 31 of the judgment of this Court in
State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. reported in 1974
(1) SCC 19, wherein this Court has held that such classification may lead
to artificial inequalities. It must be truly founded on substantial
differntia. There is no reason to make any distinction between the new
three star hotels to be set up and the existing three star hotels. It will
create a monopoly in favour of the existing three star hotels.
28. It was submitted by them that on the one hand the Government
itself is selling liquor from large number of depots and shops, through the
FL-1 licences, where the liquor bottles are purchased and taken home. The
very fact that the Government is earning more than 7000 crores annually
shows the consumption permitted by the Government. Although the government
is contending that it is not looking at it from the point of revenue, it is
not reducing the number of depots and shops which are set up by itself.
Reliance was placed in this behalf on the judgment in the case of
Rashbihari Panda vs. State of Orissa reported in 1969 (1) SCC 414. This
case involved the creation of a monopoly, with respect to Kendu leaves, by
the Government, in favour of those licensees who had worked satisfactorily
in the previous year and had paid the amounts due from them regularly, to
continue their licences with the added provision that the agents with whom
they had been working in 1967 will also work during 1968. This was
challenged on the ground that the Government, by offering to enter into
agreements for advance purchases of Kendu leaves by private offers, in
preference to open competition, was favoring existing licensees, and this
was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court accepted the
contention and directed that the tenders for purchase of Kendu Leaves be
invited by the Government, in the next season, from all persons interested
in the trade. The Respondents relied on certain observations made by this
Court, with respect to the creation of a monopoly that favours private
individuals, in the cloak of public interest. These are as follows:
"19. Validity of the law by which the State assumed the monopoly to
trade in a given commodity has to be judged by the test whether
the entire benefit arising therefrom is to enure to the State,
and the monopoly is not used as a cloak for conferring private
benefit upon a limited class of persons. The scheme adopted by
the Government first of offering to enter into contracts with
certain named licensees, and later inviting tenders from
licensees who had in the previous year carried out their
contracts satisfactorily is liable to be adjudged void on the
ground that it unreasonably excludes traders in Kendu Leaves
from carrying on their business."
29. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case
State of Maharashtra vs. Indian Hotels and Restaurant Assn. reported in
2013 (8) SCC 519, in the case of the bar-dancers of Mumbai, wherein the
amendment to the Bombay Police Act introducing S 33 A and 33 B was held to
be bad in law. Section 33 A prohibited performances of dances in eating
houses in permit rooms and beer bars. This was on the ground that whereas
the dance in three star hotels and above was permitted under 33 B, those in
these establishments were frowned upon under S 33 A. While striking this
down the Court held that such a classification is wholly unconstitutional
and contrary to Article 14. The judgment of this Court earlier referred in
the matter of Triloki Nath Khosa (supra) was referred to, wherein, it has
been laid down that the classification to be made is to be founded on a
substantial differentia. With respect to the judgment in the case of B.
Six Holiday Resorts (supra) it was submitted by the respondents herein that
there was no challenge in that matter on the basis of Article 14.
Thereafter, reliance was placed on paragraph 36 and 39 from the judgment of
this court in Reliance Energy Limited vs. Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation reported in 2007 (8) SCC 1 wherein it was held that
Article 14 requires a level playing field, though it is subject to public
interest.
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India on the
working of the Kerala Excise Department for the year 2006-2007 to 2010-
2011:-
30. The respondents have relied upon the report made by the CAG of
India under Section 16 of the CAG’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of
Service) Act, 1971. This report contained the results of the audit on the
working of the State Excise Department for the year 2006-07 to 2010-11, and
it was submitted to the Governor of Kerala under Article 151(2) of the
Constitution of India. In paragraph 5.3.1.1, the report deals with the
issue as to whether the FL3 licences were issued and renewed to non-
standard hotels/restaurants. The report was relied upon to point out that
many hotels which were not meeting the standards were permitted and
regularized, initially upto 30.6.1992. Thereafter, the regularization was
extended till 31.3.2007, and on the next day (that is on 1.4.2007) all
existing licences were regularized. Subsequently, on 1.4.2010 all FL3
licences functional during 2009-2010 were regularized. The report points
that the licences were issued to hotels, with poor hygiene standards, which
did not abide by the working hours prescribed for hotels, and which sold
liquor even on dry days. The report also pointed out that in January 2011
the Excise Commissioner of the State had sent a letter to the Government of
Kerela, highlighting the poor standards maintained by 418 unclassified
bars, and requested it not to grant fresh FL-3 licences for areas other
than tourism notified areas. The Commissioner had also pointed out that
during the last one year seven people had died due to excessive drinking in
the unclassified hotels. The report records that even though the Excise
Commissioner had requested that fresh FL-3 licences be not issued to such
establishments, they were continued to be issued, and Government had made
it a regular feature to regularize ineligible licensees. We may, however,
note that the Kerala Bar Association has filed its Written Submission
placing on record its objections with respect to the report of the
Comptroller and Auditor General.
31. The submission of the respondents, therefore, is that as of now
the FL-3 licences are not being permitted to 2 star restaurants. With the
amendment of 2011, the hotels with classification of three star are also
not being given FL-3 licences. This is going to discriminate against the
three star hotels which are to be set up hereafter, or where some
investment has also been made in anticipation of such a license. Besides,
the distance rule introduced in 2012 will affect the new hotels with
classification of four star and five star. It was submitted that this is
counter productive to the policy of encouraging tourism, since four star
and five star hotels attract large number of foreign tourists. It will
result in the monopoly of the existing four star and five star hotels on
the one hand, and will stagnate the growth of the new ones. The consumption
of liquor in all the hotels with star classification is not even 30 percent
of the total consumption in the State. The Government is not preventing
the hotels, with poor hygiene standards, from selling liquor and on the
other hand the effect of the policy will be to make prospect of setting up
of new hotels with a classification of four star and five star
unattractive. This will undoubtedly affect the objective of tourism which
the State otherwise proclaims to support. The amendment of 2012 is
therefore, clearly arbitrary and unjustified according to the respondents.
Consideration of the Submissions:-
32. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the State and
of those supporting the State, as well as of those on behalf of the
respondents. We do not dispute the intention of the State of Kerala, nor
do we dispute the problem that it is facing, and the desire to curb the
situation that exists in the State. There cannot be any dispute on the
proposition that, there is no fundamental right to trade in liquor. At the
same time we cannot ignore the dicta of the Supreme Court in Khoday
Distilleries (supra) and particularly in para 60(g) where the Apex Court
has laid down that where such a trade is permitted, there can not be any
room for discrimination.
33. There are two amendments which are under challenge. We will
have to deal with these two amendments in the light of the factual scenario
and the law governing the same. As far as the deletion of three star
hotels is concerned, we do have a judgment of this Court in the case of B.
Six Holiday Resorts (supra), wherein, the previous deletion of two star
hotels from the eligibility of FL-3 licences was upheld by this Court. It
has been submitted by the respondents that the plea under Article 14 was
not specifically canvassed when the matter was considered and decided. In
this behalf we have already referred to paragraphs 30 and 31 of this
judgment. In paragraph 30 this Court has held that promotion of tourism
should be balanced with general public interest. Paragraph 31 permits a
periodical reassessment of policy, and holds that if policy is not open to
challenge the amendment of the rules to effect the policy can also not be
challenged This being the position the grievances made by the hoteliers
with respect to the deletion of three star hotels, and to insist on a bar
licence, cannot be sustained, on this ground. Deletion of three star hotels
falls in the same genre as the deletion of two star hotels, which was done
earlier. This Court has upheld the deletion of two star hotels in the said
judgment. This being the position the state can not be faulted for deletion
of three star hotels after a periodical revision of the policy.
34. We must as well note that the two star and three star hotels
stand on a different footing as against the hotels with four star and
higher classification under the tourism policy of the Government of India.
It is relevant to note that the Ministry of Tourism (H&R Division) of the
Government of India has issued the amended guidelines for classification/re-
classification of hotels on 28.6.2012. The classification of the hotels
into star categories and heritage categories is done thereunder, and it is
a voluntary scheme. Annexure-2 contains the provisions concerning
classification/re-classification of operational hotels. Para 8(f) thereof
provides as follows:
"8(f) Bar License (necessary for four star, five star, five
star deluxe, heritage classic & heritage grand categories).
Wherever bar license is prohibited for a hotel as per local law,
the bar will not be mandatory and wherever bar is allowed as per
local laws, then the hotel will have to obtain bar license first
and then apply for classification to the Ministry of Tourism."
This being the position, it is not necessary for a three star hotel to have
a bar licence. In fact as can be seen the para 8(f) above also states that
if a local law prohibits the issuance of a bar licence to four star, five
star, five star deluxe, heritage classic and heritage grand categories,
which is otherwise necessary, such local law will prevail. In any case
three star hotels will have to be placed in a different category as against
the hotels with four star and higher classification, since it is not
necessary for three star hotels to have an FL3 licence.
35. The position with respect to the distance rule introduced in
2012 is, however, different. As far as the amendment brought in 2012
introducing the distance rule is concerned, we cannot ignore the hard
realities which are recorded in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor
General who is a constitutional functionary, and who has made the report on
receiving the necessary information from the State Government. This above
referred para 5.3.1.1 of this report speaks for itself and reads as
follows:-
"5.3.1.1 Were FL3 licenses issued and renewed to non-standard
hotels/restaurants?
The minimum standard eligible for obtaining an FL3 licence
was 2-star standards from April 1982 and 3-star and above from
April 2002. We noticed that licenses were issued and renewed to
418 bar hotels, ie. 61 per cent of the total bar hotels in the
state even though they were not eligible for the FL3 licenses as
per the Rules.
We noticed that the Government first allowed time up to 30
June 1992 for those licensees who had not attained the
prescribed two star standards to attain the prescribed standard
and subsequently extended the period. During the review period,
we noticed that the Excise Commissioner submitted his proposals
for the Abkari policy for the year 2007-08 vide letter dated 11
January 2007 which did not include the proposal for
regularisation of 418 non standard bar hotels, the list of which
was sent to the Government in January 2006. However, based on a
discussion with the Hon’ble Minister for Labour and Excise on 22
January 2007, the Excise Commissioner sent a revised proposal on
23 January 2007 including the proposal that "Bar Licenses (FL3
licences) which have not attained 2-star classification and
functioning at present may be regularised".
After we pointed out the matter the Government stated
(November 2011) that there are certain bar hotels functioning
with standard below two star specifications. As these hotels
were functioning for long periods, they were regularised based
on Abkari Policy 2007-08.
The point is not acceptable for the reason that as per
Rules the licences are issued each year and the standard for
granting licence are still three star standard.
We noticed that the Government, 15 years after extending
time limit for the first time, again extended (12 March 2007)
the time limit up to 31 March 2007 and stated that failure to
comply with the standards would lead to cancellation of
licences. However, on the very next day, i.e. 13 March 2007 the
Government added a proviso to Rule 13 that all existing
licensees not having the above classification and which were
functional as on 31 March 2007 shall be regularised. The Abkari
policy for 2008-09 (February 2008) stated that the Government
would insist on minimum facility and hygienic conditions in all
the 418 bar hotels which did not have 2-star status, but which
were regularised during 2007-08.
We noticed that the field officers of the Department had
reported violation of licence conditions like unhygienic
conditions, lack of facilities, non adherence of the time
schedule, selling on dry days, opening more than one counter,
etc. in these bar hotels. However, no action was taken by the
Department on these reports.
The Excise Commissioner sent a letter (January 2011) to
the Government highlighting the poor standards maintained by the
418 unclassified bars and requested not to grant fresh FL3
licenses for areas other than tourism notified areas. In the
letter the Excise Commissioner, inter alia, stated that the
restaurant segment of the unclassified hotels were functioning
for name sake only and during the last one year seven people had
died due to excessive drinking in the unclassified hotels. He
also pointed out that he had personally seen that almost all the
customers went there to drink liquor and not for taking food.
We noticed that even though the Excise Commissioner had
requested not to issue fresh FL3 licenses, seven more FL3
licenses were issued between 12 January and 31 March 2011.
Moreover in the Abkari Policy for 2010-11, the Government
declared that the FL3 licensees not having the requisite star
qualification and who were functional during 2009-10 should be
regularised. Thus, the Government has made it a regular feature
to regularise ineligible licensees. We are of the opinion that
the Government has not taken a firm stand to ensure that only
hotels of a minimum standard are issued FL3 licenses. Further,
we opine that the Government has seriously compromised public
safety by (a) regularising 418 unclassified bars, though they
were not able to attain the minimum standards despite repeated
extension of time and (b) by turning a blind eye towards the
various complaints against these unclassified bars. On this
being pointed out in audit the Department stated (June 2011)
that the Government is the competent authority to issue orders
allowing relaxation, if any, for the functioning of FL3
licensees/bar hotels.
36. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the respondents the
consequences of the amendment of 2012 will be that four star and five star
hotels would not be permitted to have FL-3 licences only on the ground that
they are within the prohibited distance from such hotels which have poor
hygiene standards, and which are not following norms laid down by the State
Government. We may mention that the FL3 licences are issued on an annual
basis, and it is quite within the powers of the Government not to renew
these licenses if such serious violations are reported. But the Government
appears to be slow in taking any such action. It will surely be counter-
productive to the objective of Rule 13 (3), which is to promote tourism, as
well as to the State’s avowed policy of improving the health and nutrition
standards of its citizens. The criticism of the respondents, particularly
of the hotels which have been permitted under the 6th and 7th proviso to
Rule 13(3), is therefore quite justified.
37. In the circumstances, although we do not dispute the power of
the State Government to bring about the necessary reform, by modifying the
rules, it has got to be justified on the touchstone of the correlation
between the provision and the objective to be achieved. If that
correlation is not established, surely the rule will suffer from the vice
of arbitrariness, and therefore will be hit by Article 14. The State
Government has introduced awareness programmes in this behalf and, it ought
to continue with that. It should also take steps to see to it that hotels
with poor hygiene standards are not allowed to function. We are informed
that the State Government has appointed a one-man commission for reviewing
the Abkari Policy, by issuing a necessary notification on 23.1.2013. We
hope that the commission will take into consideration the hard realities
which are reflected in the report of the CAG and make necessary
recommendations. As far as this Court is concerned, we cannot uphold the
validity of the amendment of 2012, in the present circumstances.
38. We may as well refer, at this stage, to the judgment of this
Court in P.N.Kausal and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1978 (3)
SCC 558. In that matter what the Punjab Government had done was to
prohibit the sale of liquor on Tuesdays and Fridays, but that was
applicable only to hotels, restaurants and other institutions, and was not
applicable to the institutions run by the Government. The Court held this
to be prima-facie discriminatory. In the words of Krishna Iyer,J who wrote
the judgment for a bench of three Judges "It suggests a dubious dealing by
State Power". The Learned Judge observed that "such hollow homage to
Article 47 and the Father of the Nation gives diminishing credibility
mileage in a democratic polity". Thankfully, the Additional Solicitor
General made a statement to the Court which is recorded in paragraph 42 of
that judgment that the Government readily agreed that the ban would be
observed by the State Government also. Paragraph 42 of the said judgment
reads as follows:-
"42. We must here record an undertaking by the Punjab
Government and eliminate a possible confusion. The amended rule
partially prohibits liquor sales in the sense that on Tuesdays and
Fridays no hotel, restaurant or other institution covered by it
shall trade in liquor. But this prohibition is made non-applicable
to like institutions run by the Government or its agencies. We,
prima facie, felt that this was discriminatory on its face.
Further, Article 47 charged the State with promotion of prohibition
as a fundamental policy and it is indefensible for Government to
enforce prohibitionist restraints on others and itself practise the
opposite and betray the constitutional mandate. It suggests dubious
dealing by State Power. Such hollow homage to Article 47 and the
Father of the nation gives diminishing credibility mileage in a
democratic polity The learned Additional Solicitor General, without
going into the correctness of propriety of our initial view-
probably he wanted to controvert or clarify-readily agreed that the
Tuesday-Friday ban would be equally observed by the State organs
also. The undertaking recorded, as part of the proceedings of the
Court, runs thus :-
The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State
of Punjab states that the Punjab State undertakes to proceed on the
footing that the ’Note’ is not in force and that they do not
propose to rely on the ’Note’ and will, in regard to tourist
bungalows and resorts run by the Tourism Department of the State
Government, observe the same regulatory provision as is contained
in the substantive part of Rule 37 Sub-rule 9. We accept this
statement and treat it as an undertaking by the State. Formal steps
for deleting the ’Note’ will be taken in due course."
39. We are of the view that if the Government is really serious
about reducing the consumption of liquor, it should also take steps to
reduce its own shops and depots and in any case should not open new ones.
In view of the very high consumption of liquor, which the State Government
intends to reduce, what we expect is that the Government should consider
not issuing further FL-1 licences. If it is not possible for the Government
to reduce the existing FL-1 shops, with respect to which it enjoys a
monopoly, it is of no use for it to direct the private sector alone to
function in a particular manner. The Government must as well behave in
conformity with the mandate of Article 47.
40. Before we conclude the proceedings, we may refer to one more
development in this matter. In as much as this court had not granted any
stay of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, an order was
passed by this Court on 19/9/2012 that the applications of the claimants
for the licenses be considered in eight weeks. Since no decision was
forthcoming, some of the respondents filed Contempt Petitions bearing Nos.
449 of 2012 and other contempt petitions. A notice was issued on the
Contempt Petition no. 449 of 2012 filed by respondent B. Surendra Das. A
reply was filed on behalf of the appellants on 25.01.2013 that they had
considered the applications, some of them were rejected, and in the rest
further information was sought. These steps were initiated within the time
stipulated by this court, and due to the large number of applications, the
decision was taking its own time. On 8.02.2013, this court directed that
the Contempt Petitions be heard alongwith the special leave petitions.
Since the Civil appeals arising out of these SLPs are being disposed of
with this order, no separate orders are required on the contempt petitions.
The Appellants will have to act now in terms of the order being passed
herein.
41. For the reasons stated above we allow these appeals in part and
hold as follows:
(i) The judgment rendered by the Division Bench is set-aside to the
extent it interferes with the amendment brought in the year 2011. The
deletion of three star hotels from the category of hotels eligible for FL3
licenses under Rule 13(3) is held valid.
(ii) As far as the amendment brought in 2012 introducing the distance rule
by way of addition of Rule (3E) in Rule 13(3) is concerned, the same is
held to be bad in law. The judgment of the High Court is confirmed to that
extent.
(iii) The state government will not proceed to deny FL3 licenses to hotels
with a classification of four star and above by resorting to their deletion
under Rule 13 (3) until the report of the one-man commission is received,
and until it takes action against the non-standard restaurants which have
been permitted under the sixth and seventh proviso of Rule 13(3).
(iv) No order is necessary on the contempt petitions and they stand
disposed of.
(v) All parties will bear their own costs.
......................................
..J.
[ H.L. Gokhale ]
.......................................
..J. [ J. Chelameswar ] New Delhi Dated : March 5, 2014 ITEM NO.1-A COURT No.10 SECTION IX (For judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3196-98/2014 @ SLP(C) Nos.26241-26243/12 STATE OF KERALA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS B.SURENDRA DAS ETC. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.3199-3218/2014@SLP(C) NO. 27163-27182/2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3219/2014 @ SLP(C) NO. 25725 of 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3220/2014 @ SLP(C) NO. 24414 of 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3221/2014 @ SLP(C) NO. 38251 of 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3222/2014 @ SLP(C) NO. 11004 of 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3223/2014 @ SLP(C) NO. 14956 of 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3224/2014 @ SLP(C) NO. 14958 of 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3225/2014 @ SLP(C) NO. 14959 of 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3226/2014 @ SLP(C) NO. 14960 of 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3227/2014 @ SLP(C) NO. 14961 of 2013 CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 449 of 2012 in SLP(C) No.26241-43/12 CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 450 of 2012 in SLP(C) No.26242/12 CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 20 of 2013 in SLP(C)Nos.26241-43/12 CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 18 of 2013 in SLP(C) No.27168/12 CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 19 of 2013 in SLP(C) No.27169/12 CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 431 of 2012 in SLP(C) No.27163-182/12 CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 432-444 of 2012 in SLP(C) No.27163/12 CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 5 of 2013 in SLP(C) No.27163-182/12 DATE :05/03/2014 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R.,Adv.
Mr.Mohd. Sadique, Adv.
Ms. Muqti Chowdhary, Adv.
Ms. Anita Soni, Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash,Adv.
Mr. Himinder Lal,Adv.
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena,Adv.
Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv.
Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, Adv.
Mr. M.P. Vinod, Adv.
Mr. Romy Chacko, Adv.
For Respondent(s)Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, Adv.
Mr. Roy Abraham,Adv.
mr. Himinder Lal,Adv.
Mr. Deepak Prakash, Adv.
Mr.Biju P.Raman, Adv.
Ms.Haritha V.A.,Adv.
Ms. Yogmaya, Adv.
Ms. Usha Nandini V.,Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.
Ms. Ipsita Behuria, Adv.
Mr. T. Mitra, Adv.
Mr.Venkita Subramoniam T.R., Adv.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sajith P., Adv.
Mr. Alex Joseph, Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash, Adv.
Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv.
Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Adv.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed. The parties will bear their own costs No orders are required on the contempt petitions and they stand disposed of.
All parties will bear their own costs.
(Usha Bhardwaj) (Sneh Lata Sharma) (A.R.-cum-P.S.) (Court Master) [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file ]
-----------------------
46