Policy decisions of the executive will not be interfered with unless arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity, and mala fide are apparent. Judicial restraint is exercised in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

S. Sujatha, J.

The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent - Authorities to renew the licence in Form CL - 9 considering the application dated 05.08.2018 and to quash the letter dated 31.08.2018 issued by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure F to the writ petition, inter alia, challenging the endorsement dated 13.11.2018 issued by the respondent No.4 as per Annexure K to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is claiming to be a registered Partnership Firm carrying on the business in liquor. It is submitted that the petitioner was peacefully running the business in the present place. On the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 19.07.1994 in the matter of location of liquor shops alongside the Highways, the State Governments were directed to shift/remove such liquor vends working within 500 meters through Highways. It is contended that the petitioner's licence was also one among them. The Hon'ble Apex Court modified its earlier directions and finally passed an order, leaving to the discretion of the States to allow continuation of such shops even in rural area if the area is considered to be "Sufficiently Developed Area". Accordingly, respondent No.1 after examining the matter from all angles took a decision that "Sufficiently Developed Areas" means area having the population of 5000 or above in the Grama Panchayath limits as per the census of the year 2011. In view of the said decision, respondent No.1 communicated the same to respondent No.2 - Excise Commissioner, Bengaluru.

3. The endorsement issued by respondent No.4 in pursuant to the decision of the State Government declaring the "Sufficiently Developed Area" is the cause for the petitioner to file this writ petition challenging the decision of the State Government.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the licence of the petitioner comes within the limits of the Goruru Grama Panchayath which is also sufficiently developed area having all the facilities and amenities despite having the population of less than 5000.

5. Learned counsel Sri. G. K. Bhat appearing for the petitioner submitted that the decision of respondent No.1 - State to renew the licence in the rural area alongside the Highways based on the population of 5000 and above is impermissible. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of Section 4 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('Act 1993' for short), the village Goruru which comes under the Hassan District having the population of not less than 2500 is considered to be a Panchayat area. Second proviso to Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 ('Rules' for short) provides that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise may grant licence to locate any liquor shop in a premises situated within a distance of 220 metres from the middle of a State Highway or a National Highway if such premises is located in a predominantly inhabited area, or extension of a town, village, or area the population of which is more than two thousand five hundred and where a licence to locate shop in such premises was granted or was existing during the period commencing from 1st July, 1992 and ending on 30th June, 1994. In view of the said Rule, the State Government if determined to consider the "Sufficiently Developed Area" on the basis of the population, the same requires to be in conformity with the second proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Act 1993.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. M. Jyothi, appearing for the respondents submitted that the State Government has taken a decision after verifying the various notifications issued by the other States as well as Section 4 of the Act 1993 and has arrived at a decision to declare the "Sufficiently Developed Area" based on the population of more than 5000 as per 2011 census. Indisputably, the population of the Gorur Grama Panchayath is less than 5000 as per the 2011 census. Hence, the endorsement impugned has been issued by respondent No.