LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus MANOJ KUMAR DWIVEDI AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 757 . -~ > STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. A v. MANOJ KUMAR DWIVEDI AND ORS'. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7756 of 2006) FEBRUARY 25, 2008 B • ~ (A.K. MATHUR AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) • Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968: Rule 5(4) - Location and sites for liquor shop - Not to be c in 'close proximity' of certain places mentioned in the rule - High Court opining that 100 meters or 300 ft. (approx.) would be a just measure where liquor shop should not be opened in close proximity of the places mentioned in the rule - Held: ., "-I High Court was right in holding that 100 meters or 300 ft . D (approx.) should be the criteria where Excise Commissioner would not give any licence to a shop under the Excise Act - However, approach of High Court in closing the shops without any notice to affected parties was not correct- The shops would continue to operate till 31. 3. 2008 and thereafter all shops falling E within a radius of 100 meters or 300 ft. (approx.) to a place mentioned in the rule shall be closed-Principle of natural ~ ;ustice-Notice. Words and Phrases F Expression 'close proximity' as occurring in r. 5(4) of UP Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968 - Connotation of CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7756 of 2006 G .....- From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.2006 of the High ' Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in C.M.W.P. No. 167812006 (PIL) and W.P. No. 2093 (MIS) of2006 757 H 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. ,, . A (PIL). • WITH SLP (C) Nos. 8016/2006, 8022/2006 and 7684/2006. B Dr. R.G. Padia, Ajay Kumar Misra, Dinesh Kr. Goswami, Anil Kumar Jha, Anurag Sharma, Joseph Poopkall, Prashant , • Kumar, Arvind Verma, Malvika Trivedi, T. Mahipal, Kamlendra ..; • Mishra, Shekhar Kumar, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, S. Janani, Deepak Goel, Indra Sawhney, B.K. Prasad, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, c D.S. Mahra, K.K. Tyagi and P. Narasimhan for the appearing parties. The following order of the Court was delivered: 1. All these special leave petitions involve a common question as to the interpretation of sub- rule (4) of Rule 5 of the D U. P. Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968 \-. . (hereinafter for short the "U.P. Excise Rules"). Since these petitions involve a common question, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. However, for convenient disposal of these petitions, the facts of SL P (C) No. 7756/2006 E are taken into consideration. SLP(C) No. 7756 I 2006 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order ,. dated 6.4.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court .. F of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench whereby the Division Bench has taken the view that the word "close proximity" used in sub- rule (4) of Rule 5 of the U.P. Excise Rules shall be meant to be 100 meters or 300 ft. (approx.). The brief facts leading to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court are that a G public interest petition was filed before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court making a grievance that liquor shops were opened in purely residential areas in breach of the provisions of U.P. Excise Rules. 3. The said Excise Rules have been made in exercise of t:I the powers under clauses (c) and (f) of sub- section (2) of Section STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR 759. DWIVEDI AND ORS. "). 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act No. 4 of A . ' > 1910) read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904). The said Sub- Rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Excise Rules reads as under :- 5. The following principles shall be observed in determining B the location and the sites for shops/sub- shops:- ' (4) No new shop or sub- shop shall be licensed in close . ~ proximity to a place of public resort, school, hospital, place • of worship or factory, or to the entrance to a bazar or a residential colony. All objections to the licensing of a shop c or sub- shop made by persons affected, shall receive full consideration." 4. The Division Bench of the High Court taking note of the abovesaid provision directed that all the licensed shops which were operating in close proximity to a place of public resort, D • "-f school, hospital, place of worship or factory, or to the entrance to a bazar or a residential colony shall be closed with immediate effect. As a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.