The obligation of the State to regulate the trade in intoxicants in accordance with the Constitution of India and the need to update and modulate certain provisions of the law.

RAVI S.DHAVAN, J.

1. All these petitions whether filed as public interest litigation relate to one basic issue about the setting up of retail vends of liquor shops whether country liquor or foreign liquor.

2. It needs to be placed on record and this aspect has now become relevant that the first of these cases came to the Patna High Court in 1985, almost twenty years ago. This was CWJC No. 323 of 1985; Basant Yadav V/s. The State of Bihar and others. This petition came from district of Gaya. The grievance of the petitioner in that petition was that liquor shops are being opened or have been opened indiscriminately in utter violation of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 and rules under the Acts. These are Rule Nos. 407-F and 471-E of 1919. The petitioners having made out a prima facie case that the grievance indeed had to be looked into by the State respondents received an order that he may file his representation as an objection when fresh licenses are issued and any liquor shops are established in contravention of the Act and the Rules. The order of the Bench dated 10/07/1985 is reproduced below :

"This writ application has been filed for quashing an order dated 18-12-1982 renewing the licence of Ram Sagar Country Spirit Shop, Gaya, on the ground that the licence is being granted or renewed in respect of the said country liquor shop from time to time in violation of the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It was submitted that the said shop is situated near the places of worship, school, etc. and has been causing inconvenience to the public in general. This statement has been challenged by respondent No. 3 who is the present licensee. It is well known that the licence for a country liquor shop is to be granted on the condition prescribed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules and as interpreted by Court. That is why law requires the licensing authority (to) hear objection filed in respect of such licence. As the period of licence has expired long ago we are not inclined to consider the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the license should have been renewed in favour of respondent No. 3 or not. However, we direct the petitioner to file objection if a fresh licence is to be granted or renewed in respect of the said country liquor shop. The licensing authority shall hear the petitioner or any other objector and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of."

3. The same petitioner filed another petition in 1992. This was CWJC No. 2161 of 1992; Basant Yadav V/s. The State of Bihar and others. In this writ petition the Division Bench which was seized of the matter expressed its concern that the earlier observation of the Court had not been given its due regard and respect. This Division Bench gave directions to the District Magistrate, Gaya to take immediate action in the matter and see that the orders passed by the High Court are implemented within a fortnight directing the Excise Department to shift the shop in question before the next settlement. The petitioner came to the High Court the third time. This was CWJC No. 309 of 1993; Basant Yadav and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others. The petition was presented on 11/01/1993. The petitioner complained that no regard had been given to the order of the High Court. On 3/08/1994 another Division Bench, made an observation in the order, to the effect, that it should be understood clearly that if any licence is to be granted in future, the respondent must take leave for that purpose from the High Court. It appears that the direction as were given in the 1992 petition were taken lightly so much so that on 10/05/1995 in CWJC No. 309 of 1993 the High Court directed that the shop concerned be sealed. The respondents were put under a show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt. Thereafter, the petition lay dormant and the hearing proceeded