SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI., D.Y. Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.
Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10243 of 2017)
Decided On : 11-07-2017
Liquor Sale Prohibition - State Highways - Article 142 - [21 October 2005, 16 March 2017] - The judgment addresses dangers of drunken driving on highways and prohibits the grant of liquor sale licenses along and in proximity of national and state highways. The Chandigarh Administration's reclassification of certain roads from state highways to major district roads does not violate the court's directions as it leaves unaffected the national highway and other specified state highways.
Fact of the Case:
The Chandigarh Administration reclassified certain roads from state highways to major district roads, which was challenged before the High Court on the ground of circumventing a previous judgment prohibiting liquor sale along highways. The High Court rejected the challenge, leading to proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The reclassification by the Chandigarh Administration does not violate the previous judgment's directions as it does not affect the specified national and state highways. The purpose of the judgment is to regulate liquor sale along highways, and the reclassification does not breach the directions issued by the court.
Issues: The issue was whether the reclassification of certain roads by the Chandigarh Administration circumvented the previous judgment prohibiting liquor sale along highways.
Ratio Decidendi: The reclassification of roads by the Chandigarh Administration does not violate the previous judgment's directions as it does not affect the specified national and state highways. The purpose of the judgment is to regulate liquor sale along highways, and the reclassification does not breach the directions issued by the court.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed as the reclassification by the Chandigarh Administration did not violate the previous judgment's directions.
ORDER :
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
On 15 December 2016, this Court rendered judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, Civil Appeal Nos.12164-12166 of 2016. Several directions were issued to obviate dangers to the lives and safety of persons using the highways, resulting from the menace of drunken driving. The directions contained in the judgment are reproduced 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. The present proceedings relate to Chandigarh. A notification was issued on 21 October 2005 by the Chandigarh Administration notifying major arterial roads (described as V1, V2 and V3 roads) as state highways. The development and maintenance of these roads was directed to vest in Chandigarh Administration. Recently, on 16 March 2017 the earlier notification was modified by the Administration. By the notification, all V1, V2 and V3 roads have been declared as major district roads except for National Highway no.21 and Madhya Marg from Panchkula border to Mullanpur border.
3. The notification dated 16 March 2017 was challenged before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the ground that it circumvents the judgment of this Court in K.Balu (supra). The contention did not find acceptance and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. This gave rise to proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the Additional Solicitor General for the Union Territory Administration, we dismissed the petition on 11 July, 2017 and indicated that our reasons would follow. We are accordingly indicating our reasons for dismissing the Special Leave Petition both to clarify the import of the order of this Court and to set at rest any doubt about its ambit and applicability.
5. The roads in the city of Chandigarh have been categorized from V1 to V8. The description of these roads is as follows :
Type
Function
V-1
Roads connecting Chandigarh with other cities in the region. The Madhya Marg, Dakshin Marg merge with the V1’s leading to Kalka and Ambala respectively.
V-2
The major avenues of Chandigarh, with important institutional and commercial buildings located on them. Madhya Marg, Dakshin Marg, Jan Marg, Himalaya Marg, Uttar Marg and Purv Marg are important examples of these.
V-3
Roads between sectors for fast moving vehicular traffic. Each sector is s
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.