The concept of five star as devised by the State cannot be varied according to the petitioner’s understanding.

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 3163/2014 in W.P.(C) 1519/2014

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 1519/2014

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to amend their guidelines for classifying and categorizing hotels as five star hotels.

2. Mr. S.N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the mandatory requirements of having a multi-cuisine restaurant and a bar in a five star hotel is violative of fundamental right of a citizen enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution.

3. Mr. Gupta states that classification of a hotel as five star as prescribed under the impugned guidelines is also violative of Article 47 of Constitution which reads as under:-

“47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health:- The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”

4. He points out that a new five star hotel is shortly going to open in Oman wherein no alcohol would be served.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that even without a bar or a multi-cuisine restaurant, petitioner is at liberty to start a hotel.

6. Further, the State is not coercing the petitioner to start a five star hotel. Petitioner is at liberty to promote vegetarianism and prohibition. It is not mandatory for the petitioner to apply for a five star rating. Consequently, this Court is of the view that petitioner’s argument with regard to Article 19 of the Constitution is contrary to facts and untenable in law.

7. As far as Article 47 of the Constitution is concerned, this Court is of the view that it is only directory and not mandatory.

8. This Court also takes judicial notice that a five star hotel rating is an internationally accepted concept. When an international traveller is informed that a hotel has five star status, he/she presumes a certain amount of facilities and luxuries like a bar and a multi-cuisine restaurant are available.

9. Though petitioner has given an instance of five star hotel abroad being run without a bar, yet this Court is of the view that the illustration is not apt as India is a secular country, which does not enforce complete prohibition.

10. This Court is also of the view that the concept of five star as devised by the State cannot be varied according to the petitioner’s understanding. It is settled law that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. No rare our courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. [See: Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 333].Accordingly, present petition being bereft of merits is dismissed but with noorder as to costs.