SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 952

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
Somdev Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9016 of 2013 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 255 of 2013
Decided On : 07-10-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Rules applicable at the time of consideration and not on the date of application are to be applied.

Headnote:(a) West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 - Rule 8 - License for the retail sale of spirit or any other intoxicant - Initially prohibited in close proximity of religious places and schools - Later 'close proximity' amended to 'vicinity' - Vicinity defined to within 300 feet and currently 1000 feet - Prohibition initially in respect of new sites only - Not applicable to existing hotels etc. - Applications filed before the amendments ought to be processed in accordance with the extant rules. (Para 6 to 8)

        (b) Administrative Law - State action - Application filed in 1992 - Considered in 2010 - Improper, more so when the original application was not properly filed. (Paras 8 and 12)

        (c) West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 - Rule 8 - Administrative Law - State action - Applicability of rules - Rules applicable at the time of consideration and not on the date of application are to be applied - Appellant's application though filed in 1992 considered in 2010 should have been considered in accordance with 2004 Rules - According to 2004 Rules appellant not entitled to liquor and bar licence - High Court rightly directing non-renewal of such licenses being within 1000 feet of religious places and school. (Paras 13 and 14)

        2013 (2) SCALE 789 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        The appellant was granted liquor bar licence which was opposed in a PIL on the ground of its nearness to religious places and school.

        High Court accepted the plea given in the PIL and directed that the licence should not be renewed.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment does not need interference.

       Result : Appeal dismissed with cost.

       

Judgment :-

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is a proprietor of a Hotel and Restaurant under the name and style of “BHIMSAIN VAISHNAV’ which is being run since 1954. On 28th August 1992, he made an application before the Collector of Excise, Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) for issuance of license to operate foreign liquor bar and restaurant. This application, for the reasons not available on record, kept pending for number of years. Thereafter, on 1.11.2004 he made a request that his earlier application dated 28th August 1992 may be processed and he be granted foreign liquor bar and restaurant license. It was followed by another reminder dated 8.9.2005. Thereafter, the appellant was given temporary license to run the liquor bar in January 2006, purportedly on the basis of his application submitted in the year 1992.

3. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein, namely, Muslim Khawateem Khilafat Tanzeem, a Society and Nazia Elahi Khan, President of the said society respectively, filed a Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation, with the prayers to cancel, rescind and revoke the aforesaid temporary license issued to the appellant. The plea raised was that it was not open for the appellant to run a liquor bar in the said restaurant which was in the vicinity of religious places and school, namely, Gurudwara Bara Sikh Sangar, Shree Digambar Jain Vidyalaya, Shree Jain Swetambere Panchayati Temple, Shree Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Shree Shree Satya Narayanji Mandir and also a mosque. These respondents in the said Writ Petition alleged that the aforesaid religious places and school were situated within the distance of 550 feet of the premises where the license to operate the bar by the Excise Department was granted to the appellant and this was in violation of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2003”), as amended in the year 2004. Amended Rule 8 of the said Rules imposed a ban on the grant of license for the retail sale of liquor or any other intoxicant at a new site which is within 1000 feet from any college/educational institution /religious places. This plea has been accepted by the High Court and vide impugned judgment dated 14th December 2012, the Excise Department is directed not to renew the license of the appellant which was expiring in the month of January 2013.

4. It is not in dispute that there are few religious places as well as a school within a distance of 1000 feet from the restaurant of the appellant where he runs his liquor bar as well. The precise distance of these places from the appellant’s restaurant is as under:

GurudwaraBara Sikh Sangar is at a distance of 430 ft., Shree Digambar Jain Vidyalaya is at a distance of 580 ft., Shree Jain Swetambar Panchayati Temple is at a distance of 630 ft., Shree Laxmi Narayan Mandir is at a distance of 730 ft., and Shree Shree Satya Narayanji Ka Mandir is at a distance of 780 ft.

5. It is also not in dispute that Rule 8 proscribes grant of license for retail sale of liquor or any other intoxicant at a new site which comes within the range of 1000 ft. However, case set up by the appellant is that since the application for grant of license was filed in the year 1992, the rules which were prevailing at that time would be applicable to the case of the appellant. Under Rules, 1993, the restriction was within a distance of 300 ft. from such places and since the religious places and school pointed out by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are situated beyond the vicinity of 300 ft., the license was validly granted. In this scenario, the question that falls for determination is as to whether Rules, 1993 would govern the case of the appellant or the license was to be granted keeping in mind Rules, 2003 (as amended). Before we embark on this issue, it would be essential to tread the events leading to the promulgation of the aforesaid Rules and certa






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top