Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, L NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY SEC. AND ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
K. BALU AND ANR. – Respondents
I A Nos 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-24, 25-27, 28-30, 31-33, 34-36, 37-39, 40-42 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS 12164-12166 OF 2016 WITH I A NOS 5, 6 AND 7 IN C A NO 12169 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO 12170 OF 2016 AND OTHER UNREGISTERED I.A.s ON BOARD
Decided On : 31-03-2017
(2017) 2 SCC 281 – Relied upon
(b) Road safety – Liquor vends along highways – State excise rules – enabling provision – Do not prohibit grant of liquor licence – Provide for a discretion for grant of liquor licences – Hence maintain a buffer distance from highways – Carrying on business in liquor not a fundamental right – Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of India – Direction to maintain distance of 500 metres from outer edge of national or state highways or a service lane along the highway – In public interest – Not amounting to assumption of a legislative function. (Para 15)
(c) Road safety – Liquor vends along highways – Stretches passing through municipal areas – Such vends in other parts of municipalities except along highways not barred – Plea for exemption – Rejected – Drunken driving. (Para 19)
(d) Road safety – Liquor vends along highways – Bar within 500 metres of highways – Committee constituted by Supreme Court recommending a distance of 100 metres – Recommendation duly considered and not accepted by Supreme Court. (Para 21)
(e) Road safety – Liquor vends along highways – National or State highways passing through areas with less than 20,000 population – Distance for liquor vends reduced to 220 metres with the rider that it should not be visible from the highway. (Para 22)
(f) Road safety – Liquor vends along highways – Renewal and operation of existing vends along highways – Cutoff date – Excise years not co-terminus with financial year in some States – Cutoff date of 1st April 2017 modified to not later than 30 September 2017 except in State of Tamil Nadu. (Para 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
On 15 December, 2016, the Supreme Court in ‘State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department v. K.Balu, (2017) 2 SCC 281 concluded that there is no justification to allow liquor vends on state highways (while prohibiting them on national highways) having due regard to drunken driving being one of the significant causes of road accidents in India. Hence directions have been issued for stopping the grant of licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways and over a distance of 500 metres from the outer edge of the highway or a service lane alongside. 1 April 2017 is fixed as the date for phasing out existing licences.
This clutch of applications, nearly 68 of them, have been filed basically for (i) extension of time for compliance, in certain cases; or (ii) modification or, as the case may be, recalling the judgment delivered by this Court.
Finding of the Court:
Directions cannot be construed as formulating a policy or judicial legislation.
For stretches of National or State highways passing through areas with less than 20,000 population distance for liquor vends reduced to 220 metres with the rider that it should not be visible from the highway.
Cutoff date needs to be modified.
Result: IAs disposed of.
ORDER
Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J .
1. On 15 December, 2016, this Court delivered judgment in a batch of Civil Appeals originating from the State of Tamil Nadu and the States of Punjab and Haryana. The decision of this Court is reported as ‘State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Vs. K.Balu, (2017) 2 SCC 281. The issue which the Court addressed was the presence of liquor vends on national and state highways across the country. Official figures of road accidents, with their attendant fatalities and injuries provided the backdrop for the intervention of this Court. This Court adverted to the consistent policy of the Union Government to curb drunken driving and, as an incident of the policy, to remove liquor vends on national highways. The judgment of this Court concludes that there is no justification to allow liquor vends on state highways (while prohibiting them on national highways) having due regard to drunken driving being one of the significant causes of road accidents in India.Hence, by the judgment of this Court, the following directions have been issued for stopping the grant of licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways and over a distance of 500 metres from the outer edge of the highway or a service lane alongside. 1 April 2017 is fixed as the date for phasing out existing licences. The directions are set out below:
(i) All states and union territories shall forthwith cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways;
(ii) The prohibition contained in (i) above shall extend to and include stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority;
(iii) The existing licences which have already been renewed prior to the date of this order shall continue until the term of the licence expires but no later than 1 April 2017;
(iv) All signages and advertisements of the availability of liquor shall be prohibited and existing ones removed forthwith both on national and state highways;
(v) No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or state highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway.
(vi) All States and Union territories are mandated to strictly enforce the above directions. The Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police shall within one month chalk out a plan for enforcement in consultation with the state revenue and home departments. Responsibility shall be assigned inter alia to District Collectors and Superintendents of Police and other competent authorities. Compliance shall be strictly monitored by calling for fortnightly reports on action taken.
(vii) These directions issue under Article 142 of the Constitution. “
2. This clutch of applications, nearly 68 of them, have been filed basically for (i) extension of time for compliance, in certain cases; or (ii) modification or, as the case may be, recalling the judgment delivered by this Court.
3. We may at the outset indicate that having regard to the nature and importance of the issue which finds reflection in the judgment delivered by this Court and the significant element of public interest that is involved in dealing with road accidents caused due to drunken driving on the highways of the nation, we have heard arguments extensively on 29 and 30 March, 2017 so that the matter can be addressed before the deadline of 1 April 2017. Some States and private parties who were not before the Court in the course of the original proceedings urged that their submissions in regard to the directions issued by this Court should be taken into account. Hence, we were of the view that in the interest of fairness it would be appropriate to enable a dispassionate consideration of their perspectives in order to determine whether
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
