Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pramod Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 August, 2015

                                     1


           Writ Petition (PIL) No.2764/2015
24.08.2015
      Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
      Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General
with Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent / State.

Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned counsel for the proposed intervener.

They are heard.

By this public interest litigation, the petitioners are challenging the action of the respondents, whereby they increased the closing time of liquor shops and pubs till 11.30 PM and 12.00 Mid Night respectively.

2. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 framed a policy on 21.01.2015. As per Clause 40 of the policy, closing timings of liquor shops and pubs have been extended from 10.30 PM to 11.30 PM and 11.00 PM to 12.00 Mid Night with effect from 01.04.2015.

3. Clause 40 of the policy dated 21.01.2015 reads, as under: -

"40- efnjk nqdkuksa dh fcdzh dk le;
efnjk dh QqVdj fcdzh dh nqdkuksa dh lkQ&lQkbZ rFkk efnjk ds izkjafHkd laxzg] vken] fodz; ,oa vafre laxzg ds nSfud ys[ks dh iaft;ksa dks iw.kZ@la/kkfjr fd;s tkus ds fy;s izkr% 8-30 cts ls izkr% 9-30 cts rd dk le; ,oa efnjk fodz; dk le; izkr% 9-30 cts ls jkf= esa 11- 2 30 cts rd ,oa jsLrjk@gksVy@fjlksVZ rFkk Dyc ckj yk;lsalksa esa efnjk ds fodz; dk le; izkr% 10%00 cts ls jkf= 12-00 cts rd jgsxkA"

4. The proposal of the policy was sent by the Excise Department to the Cabinet. The proposal of the Excise Department was duly accepted by the Cabinet in respect of increasing the timings of closure of authorized liquor shops / pubs and forwarded the same to the Excise Department for issuance of the notification. Accordingly, notification dated 21.01.2015 was issued in the MP Gazette. The object of the policy, as reflected in the gazette notification dated 21.01.2015, is to protect crime under the garb of sale of illegal liquor and the policy is made in the interest of public at large.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the instance of the pub owners and liquor contractors, the timings have been changed with mala fide intention, due to which, the public at large is suffering, and therefore, Clause 40 of the policy dated 21.01.2015, which has been added with mala fide intention, be quashed.

6. It is submitted by Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent / State that crime rates are increasing and it is very difficult 3 to the public administration to control the crime rate and to maintain piece and tranquility in the city. He has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case Ugar Sugar Works Limited v. Delhi Administration & others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 635 and in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & others v. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) reported in (2008) 4 SCC 720.

7. He submits that the aforesaid increase in the timings of closure of liquor shops and pubs are a part of policy decision of the State, which was framed in the month of January, 2015 itself. The State Government under Section 18 (1) of the MP Excise Act, 1915, is empowered to grant license to any person on such conditions, as it may think fit, therefore, question of interfering with the policy of the State, does not arise. It is also pointed out that it is the discretion of the State Government to regulate the supply of liquor within its territorial jurisdiction to ensure that it is in the interest of public at large. He has also drawn our attention of the Full Bench decision dated 26.03.2010 of this Court in the case of Chingalal Yadav s/o Hubblal Yadav & others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others in Writ Petition No.1632/2010 and prayed for 4 dismissal of the writ petition.

8. It is well settled that the State can adopt any mode for grant of license or trade or business, with a view to import its revenue, but the method adopted should not be discriminatory, otherwise it would hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

9. In the case in hand, under Section 62 of the MP Excise Act, 1915, the State Government is empowered to frame policy for grant of licenses and right to sell by wholesale or retail of liquor or intoxicating drugs.

10. In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & others v. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) (supra), the Apex Court had held that this court would not interfere with the policy decision of the State Government unless it is found to be mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair. As per the provisions of MP Excise Act, 1915 and the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is well settled that the court would be slow to interfere with the policy laid down by the State Government for grant of licence for manufacture, sale of liquor and run the liquor shops and bar and their timings. More over, grant of licence for manufacture and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter of economic policy where the court would hesitate to intervene and strike 5 down what the Government has done unless it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide. This court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out that the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.

12. On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of the view that Clause 40 of the policy dated 21.01.2015 by which timings of closure of liquor shops and pubs are enhanced by one hour i.e. for liquor shops from 10.30 PM to 11.30 PM and for pubs from 11.00 PM to 12.00 Mid Night, is just and proper. No case to interfere with the aforesaid policy dated 21.01.2015, as prayed for in this public interest litigation, is made out.

13. Writ Petition No.2764/2015 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

              (P.K. Jaiswal)                            (D.K. Paliwal)
                 Judge                                      Judge
Pithawe RC