IMPORTANT POINT
State governments should determine whether principles governing municipal areas would apply to local self-governing bodies.

ORDER :

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

This batch of MAs/IAs arises from the judgment dated 15 December 2016 rendered by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v K Balu, Civil Appeal 12164-12166/2016 and the subsequent orders dated 31 March 2017 and 11 July 2017. The last of the above orders was delivered in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v The Union Territory of Chandigarh, Special Leave Petition (C) No.10243 of 2017.

2. Though the reliefs which have been sought in the individual MAs/IAs may differ, during the course of the hearing there is a broad consensus that for the purpose of the present proceedings, it would be sufficient if this Court were to interpret paragraph 7 of the order dated 11 July 2017. Paragraph 7 is extracted below:

“7. The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15 December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in proximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We have considered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at rest any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs, before the Court.”

3. Learned counsel submitted that the expression ‘municipal areas’ in the above paragraph was not intended to exclude areas within the jurisdiction of local self-governing bodies. Many of them, it is urged, may be developed in a manner similar to municipalities. Others, may be geographically proximate to an urban agglomeration. Hence it was urged that an appropriate direction may be issued to obviate uncertainties in application, occasioning the need for repeated recourse to this Court or, as the case may be, litigation in the High Courts.

4 The application has been opposed by one of the contesting intervenors who placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in APSRTC v Abdul Kareem, (2007) 2 SCC 466 and Cine Exhibitions Private Limited v Collector, District Gwalior, (2012) 6 SCC 698. It has been urged that an application for modification or clarification of a judgment would fall within the realm of a review and hence the present applications would not be maintainable.

5. Dealing with the above objection, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submit that they seek neither a review nor a modification of the orders passed by this Court. The attention of the Court was drawn to an order dated 13 December 2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 964/2017 and 1050/2017 in the following terms:

“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 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.”

The submission is that it will suffice if permission is granted to the state governments to determine whether the applicants and similarly placed individuals are governed by the principle which was laid down by this Court in relation to municipal areas.

6. In Cine Exhibitions Private Limited (supra) a bench of two learned Judges comprising of Justice KSP Radhakrishnan and Justice Dipak Misra, (as the learned Chief Justice then was) held thus:

“Generally an application for correction of a typographical error or omission of a word, etc. in a judgment or order would lie, but a petition which is intended to review an or