Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

To drink or not to drink. That is the Hamletian dilemma of Anoop, the appellant. He has chosen to drink. He rails at the rules that obstruct his passion for the pint, his right to choose, to be let alone, to privacy, and, of all, his right to life. He claims that the laws prohibiting alcoholic drinks fall foul of the fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen, to him. Do they? Our answer:

No. Facts:

2. Anoop M.S., the appellant, has a profession: he taps rubber trees and extracts latex. He taps about 400 trees a day. For this he works from 6 in the morning till 2 in the afternoon. Anoop has a habit: given what he calls it to be his "hectic work schedule", he finds his solace in "consuming small quantities" of liquor purchased from the retail outlets of Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC) and Kerala State Co-operative Federation; that is, the second and third respondents. Liquor is his "daily diet." This daily diet makes Anoop "rejuvenated, relaxed," and even "physically fit," as if it were the elixir of his life. Anoop is KSBC's loyal consumer, so to say. Grievance:

3. Before 2014-15, when the Government introduced a new Abkari Policy ("the New Policy"), Anoop took his daily diet from the "bar hotels". Because of the New Policy, now he could not have access to bar-hotels but is constrained to buy liquor from the Government outlets. It costs him more!

4. According to the Policy, the Government has decided to shut down the retail outlets in a phased manner--10% of retail outlets to be closed annually as per Clause 2 of the Policy. Clause 2, Anoop accuses, was introduced with no "specific or scientific study." Though the consumption of liquor is not prohibited in Kerala, the Policy indirectly prohibits the consumption. The State cannot prohibit a lawful thing "by introducing a policy." It ought to be effected only by a positive legislative enactment. The Policy is bad in law.

5. The Government has monopolized the liquor trade. The State is "enriched by the sale of liquor." Though KSBC levies exorbitant taxes and duties on liquor, it provides no quality services to the customers. The retail outlets closed in a phased-manner, the remaining outlets struggle to cater to the customers. The queue lengthening, the consumers must spend over two hours "in unhealthy and unworthy circumstances" to purchase liquor. The policy, in fact, is against the KSBC's objectives.

6. Anoop sanctifies liquor: alcohol has "historical and religious importance" in Kerala. It is used in some temples and rituals of Hindu Community, so closing outlets will affect the religious sentiments of the Hindus who follow "Puliyampulli'', a ritual observed among some sects within the Hindu community in Kerala to worship Goddesses Shakhty. Remediless, Anoop has filed W.P. No.33709 of 2015 to have the New Policy quashed.

Writ Outcome:

7. Through a judgment, dated 6th August 2016, this Court, per a learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition: The courts, up to the apex level, have upheld the policy; so, the policy needs no interference.

Appeal:

8. Resolute and resilient, Anoop, the rubber-tree tapper, has filed this Writ Appeal, reiterating the same contentions that earned rejection earlier. Submissions:

Appellant's:

9. Sri Legith T. Kottakkal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has passionately argued that the Government has misused its dominant position by introducing the policy, though it has no authority to prohibit a lawful activity, and indirectly at that. According to him, Abkari Act ("the Act") has no provision to empower the Government to prohibit liquor. The liquor prohibition, even in a phased manner, is outside the purview of Abkari Act.

10. State cannot dictate to the individuals what they should eat and what they should drink, the counsel contends. Reasonable restrictions can only be imposed but only by a statute. The New Policy does not restrict the liquor sale; on the contrary, it prohibits the liquor. It mil