Liquor Ban--National Highways--There is no law under which any road is declared as State Highway in Union Territory, Chandigarh--In fact, these are inter-sectorial roads.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by one NGO, which is working to create awareness about road safety and educating youth about liquor abuse. Challenge has been made to the notification dated 16.3.2017 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Chandigarh Administration, vide which while modifying the earlier notification dated 21.10.2005, the nomenclature of certain roads, was changed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166 of 2016 The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary Home, Prohobition & Excise Dept. & Ors. Vs K. Balu and Anr., decided on 15.12.2016, submitted that the issue under consideration in the aforesaid judgment was regarding location of liquor vends on the National and State Highways across the country. Hon'ble the Supreme Court examined the issue in detail and found that number of accidents were being caused because of easy availability of liquor just on the highways. While exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, certain directions were issued, restraining the States and Union Territories from granting any license for sale of liquor along National and State Highways. Restraint also included even on the portions of National and State Highways falling within the limits of cities. These are to be located at a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the National or State Highway or of a service lane along with highway. It was submitted that vide notification dated 21.10.2005, all major Arterial Roads i.e. V-1, V-2, V-3 roads (except National Highway No.21), were declared as 'State Highways'. It was mentioned in the aforesaid notification that these roads carry medium to heavy traffic and are linked with other States, rural as well as urban areas. Vide impugned notification, to circumvent the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K. Balu's case (supra), the nomenclature of V-1, V-2 and V-3 roads has been changed from 'State Highways' to 'Major District Roads', except Madhya Marg from Panchkula border (State of Haryana) to Mullanpur border (State of Punjab).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to Entry 23 in List I of 7th Schedule in the Constitution of India (Union List) to show what a National Highway means. For State Highway, Entry 13 of List II of 7th Schedule (State List) was referred to.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that binding effect of a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court cannot be taken away by the State/UT unless the basis thereof is removed with competence.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, submitted that Chandigarh is a very small city, the area being far less than even a smallest district in a State. It's total area is merely 114 square kilometers. There is no law under which any road is declared as State Highway in Union Territory, Chandigarh. He further submitted that even in the States of Punjab and Haryana of which Chandigarh is Capital, there is no specific law under which a road is declared as – State Highway. He further submitted that in the States of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan, there are specific laws dealing with that issue.

6. He further submitted that notification in the year 2005 was issued just with a view to share the responsibilities of maintenance of different roads in the City. The Municipal Corporation having come into existence, certain responsibilities had to be shared with it. After the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in K. Balu's case (supra), the matter was re-examined and noticing that there is one National Highway crossing through Chandigarh and there is another road which connects two States, namely, Punjab and Haryana. These two were left out and all other roads were declared as major d