Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, ANUROOP SINGHI
Kanhaiya Lal Soni S/o Shri Mal Chand Soni – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought regarding liquor shop regulation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. supreme court directions on liquor shop restrictions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. violations of liquor shop location regulations noted. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. state responsibility for enforcement of liquor law. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. order for compliance and accountability measures. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition (PIL) has been preferred by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs :
"A) The Respondent State authorities be directed to shift/Locate all the Liquor shops in the City of Sujangarh 500 mtrs. vs. K. Balu & anr. and Judgment dated 20.03.2023 passed in Kanagachettikulam Makkal Podhunala Eyakkam vs. U.O.I. & Ors. and B). The Respondent State be directed to amend Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Excise Rule, 1956 in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and others Vs. K. Balu dated 15.12.2016 and reiterated in Kanagachettikulam Makkal Podhunala Eyakkam vs. U.O.I. & Ors. vide Judgment dated 20.03.2023: and C) Any other order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court
Compliance with statutory distance regulations for liquor shops from sensitive establishments is essential for public health and must be enforced by state authorities.
The court mandated removal of liquor shops within 500 meters of highways to uphold public safety and comply with Supreme Court directions.
The court mandates strict compliance with safety regulations prohibiting liquor shops within 500 meters of highways, reiterating that public safety must take precedence over revenue considerations.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, Section 17(3)(a), and the Chhattisgarh Excise (Amendm....
A validly enacted law cannot be challenged on the grounds of hardship; the provisions apply uniformly, and existing licenses are not affected by new distance requirements.
Courts cannot interfere with the location of liquor stores based on personal moral objections unless guidelines are completely unreasonable or opposed to public policy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
