Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Hotel Sonai Beer Bar And Permit Room vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 December, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
SLP(C) 19845/2017
1
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.1 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19845/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-07-2017
in WP No. 5182/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay At Aurangabad)
HOTEL SONAI BEER BAR AND PERMIT ROOM & ANR. Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondents
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.68346/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.68350/2017-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T.)
WITH
Diary No. 22446/2017 (IX)
(IA No.71962/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.71965/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA
No.71960/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP)
Diary No. 22968/2017 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.73065/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.73066/2017-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.73064/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP)
Diary No. 24109/2017 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.76527/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.76529/2017-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.76526/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP)
SLP(C) No. 22071/2017 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.79813/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.79812/2017-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.81577/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS)
Diary No. 26377/2017 (IX)
(IA No.84874/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP and IA
No.84875/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
and IA No.84876/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Diary No(s). 29164/2017 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.117198/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.117199/2017-EXEMPTION FROM
Signature Not Verified
FILING O.T. and IA No.117187/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP and IA
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2017.12.22
No.117192/2017-CONDONATION
15:01:24 IST
Reason: OF DELAY IN REFILING and IA
No.130761/2017-impleading party and IA No.134720/2017-impleading
party)
W.P.(C) No. 964/2017 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.101721/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) 19845/2017
2
W.P.(C) No. 1050/2017
Date : 13-12-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Petitioners
Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, Adv.
Mr. Nishant, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. F. I. Choudhury, AOR
Mr. Nandkumar N. Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Yatin M. Jagtap, Adv.
Mr. Shakti Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Ajit B. Kale, Adv.
Mr. Shrikant R. Deshmukh, Adv.
For Respondents/
Applicants Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
for impleaders Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
(I.A. 130761 & 134720 Ms. Iyengar Shubharanjini Ananth, AOR
in D.No. 29164/2017)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C) No. 19845/2017, Diary Nos. 22446/2017, 22968/2017, 24109/2017, 26377/2017 and 29164/2017 Permission to file special leave petitions is granted.
Delay in refiling the special leave petition is condoned.
All impleadment applications are allowed.
Heard Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra.
At the very outset, Mr. Kenjale, learned counsel SLP(C) 19845/2017 3 for the petitioners stated that he is putting forth the case of all the petitioners in the present special leave petitions. His singular point that has been canvassed before us is that the roads that are being treated as State roads, are actually not State Highways, having not been notified. Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the State would submit that though there is no notification, the upgradation has been there, and the expert committee after considering the matter has opined that there should not be liquor shops and they should shift beyond the stipulated distance of 200 meters or 500 meters, as the case may be.
In view of the aforesaid, while declining to interfere, we permit the petitioners to shift, regard being had to the distance from the State road. If they shift and submit an application, the competent authority after scrutiny, shall revive their licences for the remainder of the period, within a week therefrom.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the special leave petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SLP(C) No. 22071/2017Heard Mr. F.I. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra.
It is submitted by Mr. F.I. Choudhury that the shops in question are within the municipal area. This Court has recently in I.A. Nos. 1060-1062/2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166/2016, clarified the position as SLP(C) 19845/2017 4 stated thus:-
“The above observations make it clear that the purport of the judgment dated 15 December 2016 is to prohibit the sale of liquor along and in proximity of highways which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages. In other words, this will not operate to prohibit licenced establishments within municipal areas. The clarification to the effect that it “shall govern other municipal areas as well” is clearly intended to set the matter at rest in relation to other parts of the country so as to obviate the need for repeated applications before this Court. The expression “other municipal areas” will apply to all municipal areas, wherever situated.” The aforesaid clarification shall apply in full force to the present petitioners if their shops are situated within the municipal area.
In view of the aforesaid, the special leave petition is disposed of.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) Nos. 964/2017 and 1050/2017 Heard Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to direct that each of the petitioners shall submit a representation within three weeks hence, stating that they are entitled to be governed by the principle as applicable to the municipal areas/MIDC developed areas. The individual facts shall be mentioned in each representation. The same shall be considered by the competent authority and decided, keeping in view the judgments of this Court, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt SLP(C) 19845/2017 5 of the representation. Needless to say, the representation shall be decided by ascribing reasons and recording a finding. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they can approach this Court.
With the aforesaid directions and liberty, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Deepak Guglani) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Assistant Registrar