1. Applications for clarification regarding the interpretation of municipal area exemptions in the context of prohibitions on liquor sales near highways. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 202
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., AMITAVA ROY, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Sec. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
K. Balu & Anr. - Respondents
MA Nos. 489-491, 366-368, 392-394, 395-397, 388-390 of 2018; 1543-1545, 1546-1548 & 1549-1551 of 2017 In Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166 of 2016
Decided On : 23-02-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
State governments should determine whether principles governing municipal areas would apply to local self-governing bodies.
State governments should determine whether principles governing municipal areas would apply to local self-governing bodies.
Subject
Administrative Law - Liquor Licensing
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII, Rule 1 – Ban on sale of liquor along highways – Licensed establishments in municipal areas excluded – Application for direction in respect of local bodies proximate to a municipality or sufficiently developed like a municipality – Neither seeking review nor modification of order cited. (Para 6)
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 964/2017 and 1050/2017; (2012) 6 SCC 698 – Relied upon
(2007) 2 SCC 466 – Referred
(b) Interpretation of order – Dated 11 July 2017 passed in SLP (C) No.10243 of 2017 – State governments allowed to determine whether principles governing municipal areas would apply to local self-governing bodies – In doing so the State governments regard should be had to proximity of such bodies to a municipal agglomeration or nature and extent of its development. (Para 8)
Civil Appeal 12164-12166/2016; SLP (C) No.10243 of 2017 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This case concerns issues relating to sale of liquor along highways.
Finding of the Court:
State governments should determine whether principles governing municipal areas would apply to local self-governing bodies.
Result: MAs/IAs disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Applicants seek extension of municipal exemptions to local self-governing bodies; intervenors argue that such clarification requests constitute an impermissible review of the judgment. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Clarification requests are maintainable if they do not amount to a review; the highway liquor ban's object is to regulate connectivity between urban centers. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. State governments may determine if municipal area exemptions apply to local self-governing bodies based on factual development and the object of the highway prohibition. (Para 8 )
5. State governments are permitted to determine the applicability of the municipal area principle to local self-governing bodies and statutory development authorities. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. When does an application for clarification or modification of a judgment constitute an impermissible review?
An application is considered a review if it seeks to modify a judgment beyond correcting typographical errors or omissions, which requires a properly constituted review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 6 )
7. Can the exemption from liquor sale prohibitions near highways be extended to areas governed by local self-governing bodies?
Yes, state governments are not precluded from determining if the principle applicable to municipal areas extends to local self-governing bodies or statutory development authorities based on factual development and proximity to urban agglomerations. (Para 8 )
8. What factors should state governments consider when deciding if a local self-governing body qualifies for the municipal area exemption?
State governments should consider all relevant circumstances, including the nature and extent of development in the area and the underlying object of prohibiting liquor sales on national and state highways. (Para 8 )
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
