2006 Supreme(Raj) 1953
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Mohammad Rafiq
Residents of Village Magra-Punjala - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3409 of 2005
Decided On : 07/17/2006
Shri M .D. Purohit, Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Anand Purohit and Rakesh Kalla, for the Petitioners.
Shri M .R. Singhvi, for the Respondents.
The court highlighted the authority of the Excise Commissioner to grant relaxation in exceptional circumstances regarding the location of liquor shops, emphasizing the need to balance revenue generation with public sentiment.
Headnote:
Excise Rules - Location of Liquor Shop - Rule 75(2)
Fact of the Case:
The dispute relates to the location of an excise shop at Magra-Punjala, Kirti Nagar, Jodhpur, with the petitioners claiming that the shop is situated within the prohibited distance prescribed under Rule 75(2) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the location of the shop did not violate the mandate of Rule 75(2) and observed that the Excise Commissioner is competent to grant relaxation regarding the condition of the location of a liquor shop in exceptional circumstances after recording sufficient reasons for the same.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Rule 75(2) in relation to the proximity of educational institutions and places of worship to the liquor shop.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to balance the revenue generation from excise licenses with public sentiment and the changing urban landscape, indicating that literal application of Rule 75(2) would make it difficult to find suitable locations for liquor shops.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
S.N. Jha, CJ.-The dispute in this writ petition which has been filed as a public interest litigation relates to location of an excise shop at Magra-Punjala, Kirti Nagar, Jodhpur, The petition was filed on 01.06.2005 during currency of the licence for 2005 -2006 and though the period has since expired we are told that fresh licence has been issued to the contractor, Sita Ram Kachhawaha, Respondent No. 5 herein, for shop at the same site.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the shop is situated within the prohibited distance prescribed under Rule 75(2) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956. It is said that there are four schools in close proximity besides a Hanuman temple and, therefore, the location is violative of Rule 75(2).
Rule 75 so far as relevant runs as under:-“75. Location of shops-(1) A licensee for the retail sale of Country Liquor, Foreign or Indian Made Foreign Liquor or hemp drugs shall have his shop only at a place approved by the District Excise Officer concerned.
(2) Ashop for the retail sale of Country Liquor or Foreign or Indian Made Foreign Liquor shall not be located within a distance of 200 meters of Collegiate Educational Institution, Senior Higher Secondary School, Hospital, Place of Worship or place of Public Entertainment, a Factory or a Labour or Harijan colony. (3)........................
(4) The District Excise Officer, with sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, shall have the powers to shift a shop from one place to another and no compensation shall be given to the licensee for such shifting of a shop: Provided that the Excise Commissioner may grant relaxation in the above conditions of location of a Liquor shop in exceptional circumstances after recording sufficient reasons in writing for doing so. (5)................. ........................... ......................... Explanation. 1-For the purpose of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 75, the restrictions about the distance of a shop from a “place of Worship” in the cities having a population of more than one lac shall only be applicable in respect of those places of worship entered in the list maintained in the office of the District Excise Officer.
2. ................. ........................... ................... .................
3. Any shop situated near an Educational Institution other than a college or a Senior Higher
Secondary School level Institution shall be opened only atleast one hour after the closing time of
that Institution.
a.4 . ................. ........................... ................... .................
The names of the schools in question and their distances from the shop, according to the
petitioner, are as under:-
b.(i) Shiv Public School 225 meters
c.(ii) Satyam Public School 150 meters
(iii) J.B. M. Secondary School 114 meters
(iv) Varun Vidhya Niketan Secondary School 157 meters
3. Khima Ram, Assistant Excise Officer has filed affidavit wherein it has inter alia, been stated as
under:-“I am directed by District Excise Officer to verify the distances of various schools as mentioned in Exhibit-6. Accordingly I myself went on the spot and measured the distances of all the schools, which are as under:-
.(A) J.B. M. Secondary School is situated at a distance of 135 meters.
.(b) Satyam Public School is situated at a distance of 150 meter.
.(c) Shiv Public School is situated at a distance of 225 meter.
.(d) Varun Vidya Niketan is situated at a distance of 230 meters from the shop in question.
Thus all the schools are located beyond the prescribed distances.”
4. On a conjoint reading of the averments made in the writ petition and the affidavit of Khima Ram it would appear that there is no dispute about the distance as regards Shiv Public School and Satyam Public School. While Varun Vidya Niketan Secondary School, according to the petitioner, is located within 200 meters of the shop, according to the Department it is situated 230 meters away which is beyond the 200 meters limit fixed under Rule 75(2). So far as J.B.M. Public Sc