THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS versus K. BALU AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 23-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
665
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS
v.
 K. BALU AND ANR.
 (MA Nos 489-491/2018,  366-368/2018, 392-394/2018, 395-397/2018,
388-390/2018, 1543-1545/2017, 1546-1548/2017 and 1549-1551/2017)
IN
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166 of 2016)
 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Liquor –  Sale of  – In the order passed by Supreme Court on
11.7.2017, it was observed that the purpose of the directions
contained in the order dated 15.12.2016 is to deal with the sale of
liquor along and in the proximity of highways, which provide
connectivity between cities, towns and villages – The order did not
prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas – This Court
further clarified in the order that it will govern other municipal
areas as well – In the subsequent order dated 13.12.2017, liberty
was granted to the licence holders to submit a representation to the
state government that the same principle should  apply to the licensed
establishments of the petitioners, as they applied to municipal areas
– Having regard to these directions, the state governments would
not be precluded from determining whether the principle which has
been laid down by this Court in  order dated 11.7.2017 should also
apply to areas covered by local self-governing bodies and statutory
development authorities – It is a question of fact as to whether an
area covered by a local self-governing body is proximate to a
municipal agglomeration or is sufficiently developed as to warrant
the  application  of  the  same  principle – In   deciding as to whether
the principle which has been set down in the order dated 11.7.2017
should be extended to a local self-governing body (or statutory
development authority) the state governments would  take recourse
to all relevant circumstances including the nature and extent of
development in the area and the object  underlying  the  direction
prohibiting the sale of liquor on national and the state highways –
665
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 665
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
The use of the expression ‘municipal areas’ in order dated 11.7.2017
does not prevent the state governments from making that
determination and from taking  appropriate  decisions  consistent
with  the  object  of  the orders passed by this Court – It  is left open
to individual licensees to  submit  their  representations  to  the
competent  authorities in the state governments if they are so advised
upon which appropriate decisions may be taken by the state
governments – MAs/IAs   disposed of.
State of Tamil Nadu v. K Balu [2016] 11 SCR 244
: (2017) 2 SCC 281; Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh
v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh SLP (C)
No.10243 of 2017; APSRTC v. Abdul Kareem [2007]
1 SCR 888 : (2007) 2 SCC 466; Cine Exhibitions
Private Limited v Collector, District Gwalior (2012) 6
SCC 698; Hotel Sonai Beer Bar and Permit Room v
State of Maharashtra SLP (C)No 19845/2017 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 11 SCR 244
 referred to
Para 1
[2007] 1 SCR 888
 referred to
Para 4
(2012) 6 SCC 698
 referred to
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : MA Nos. 489-491/2018,
366-368/2018, 392-394/2018, 395-397/2018, 388-390/2018, 1543-1545/
2017, 1546-1548/2017 and 1549-1551/2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-
12166 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2013 and 28.03.2013
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 23773 of
2012, M. P. Nos. 9 and 10 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 23773 of 2012.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv,  Roy Abraham, Ms. Seema Jain,
Ms. Reena Roy, Himinder Lal, P.N. Goswami, Ms. Pranita Shekhar,
Pawan K. Sharma, Shashi Ranjan, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Dr. Manish
Singhvi, Satyendra Kumar, Shailja Nanda Mishra, Irshad Ahmad, Ashutosh
Dubey, Krishnendu Sarkar, Ms. Rajshri, Abhishek Chauhan, V. S. Rawat,
Sushil Pandey, Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Ms. Anandini
Kumari, P. V. Yogeswaran, R. B. Phookan, Ms. Neha Tandon, Shailesh
Madiyal, M. Yogesh Kanna, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Nandini Sen
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
667
Mukherjee, Ajay Marwah, Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for the Appellants.
S.S. Shamshery, AAG, C. L. Pandey, Sr. Adv., Ms. Binu Tamta,
S.S. Rawat, Hemant Arya, G.S. Makker, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh,
Ankit Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Manish Kaushik,
Ms. Ananya Pandey, Dipesh Sharma, Yash Pal Dhingra, G. Prakash,
Jishnu M. L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash,
Vijay Shankar V. L., S. Thananjayan, Kaleeswaram
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.