Courts cannot enforce policy decisions of the State regarding prohibition, as such decisions fall outside their jurisdiction.

1. The Present Writ Petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioners claiming themselves to be the public spirited persons mainly seeking a direction to the respondents for complete prohibition of the sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh and further to take all welfare measures in relation to the health and nutrition of the citizens of the State. The petitioners have also sought a direction to the respondents to produce entire record in relation to Annexures P - 1, P - 4 and P - 6.

2. According to petitioner No.1, earlier she had filed a Writ Petition for removing the liquor shops situated at the National and State Highways and ultimately the stand taken by her in the said petition was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 12164 - 12166 of 2016 which were decided on 15.12.2016. The main thrust of the petitioners in this petition is that in the past few years the sale and consumption of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh has gone up alarmingly causing innumerable hardships and sufferings to the common people, in particular, the ones who belong to the poor financial background. The other concern of the petitioners in this petition is that the rampant sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks is not only imperiling the health of poor people of the State but is also detrimental to their moral and ethical values.

3. Referring to Art.47 of the Constitution of India it is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that it is the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. According to the counsel for the petitioners, instead of adhering to Art.47 of the , the respondents are trying to promote the liquor business and thereby causing health hazards to the poor citizens of the State. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise, State of Chhattisgarh is so sound financially that it does not require the revenue from such harmful sources which ultimately adversely affects the public at large. According to him, the directions have been given to the local authorities for construction of liquor shops in their respective areas so that liquor can be sold comfortably from these shops which are within the premises of the local bodies. It is argued that although the local bodies are against making any such construction but yet the State Government is entirely bent upon doing so. Several newspaper clippings have been filed by the petitioners to demonstrate the alleged ill - effects of the liquor consumption including that of sharp rise in crime graph in the society. According to the petitioners, even though certain representations were also made against this high - handed and adamant attitude of the Government yet it did not bear any fruit. During the course of argument, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that the act of the State Government in showing indifferent attitude is in utter violation of the Art.21 of the .

4. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Advocate General that Art.47 of the Constitution of India is not enforceable in law and it is only the legislature and the executive who can consider the policy as enshrined in part IV of the which includes Art.47 in it. Learned Advocate General further argued that the Courts may not interfere with the policy making decision of the State Government and no such direction can be issued regarding prohibition of sale of liquor in the State. He argued that though the petitioners have prayed for production of record in relation to documents of Anne