VIKRAMA SHAMA SHETTY versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 20-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIKRAMA SHAMA SHETTY 
I 
v. 
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
JULY 20, 2006 
.., 
B 
[ ARIJJT PASAYA T AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1929; Section 148/Bombay Foreign Liquor 
Rules 1953; Rule 45(1-C): 
c 
Application for grant of Licence/permit to sell foreign made liquor in 
the vicinity of a mosque-Rejected by the authorities on ground of non-
fulfilment of requirement of distance prohibition-Allowed by Appellate 
Authorities-Reversed by Revisional Authority-Challenge to-Allowt!d by 
Single Judge-Affirmed by Division Bench of the High Court-On appeal, 
D Held: Distance prohibition is mandatory in nature-Distance between two 
out of three entrances to the mosque and the applicant's establishment is 
within the permissible limit-However, the third entrance which has been 
most commonly used lies within the prohibition limit-Hence, the Single 
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court justified in holding that the 
E 
establishment of the applicant situated within the prohibitory distance. 
Revisional jurisdiction-Exercise of-Held: Since power of revision 
vested in the State Government, it cannot be said that such exercise by the 
State was beyond its jurisdiction merely because it acted on the petition filed 
by the police authorities. 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14: 
Grant of licence by Authorities to establishments allegedly situated in 
the prohibitory distance hut denied to the applicant-Discrimination---Held: 
Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such a case 
G as it would amount to perpetuating another wrong. 
The question which arose for determination before this Court was as to 
whether the revisional authority under The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1929 
was right in refusing to grant a licence to sell foreign liquor to the appellant 
in its establishmer.t, a restaurant on the ground that the distance between 
, 
H 
754 
VIKRAMA SHAMA SHETTY v. ST ATE OFMAHARASHTRA 
755 
the establishment of the appellant is situated within the prohibitory distance A 
from the mosque, and as such it violates the mandatory provisions of law in 
terms of Rule 45(1-C) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules. 
Appellant contended that the language of Rule 45(1-C) of the Bombay 
Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 makes the position clear that in order to 
ascertain prohibitory distance, reference could be made to the path by which B 
pedestrian ordinarily reaches the religious institution; that since the two 
entrances are not ordinarily used, the distance has to be reckoned from the 
'third entrance gate' which is admittedly beyond the prohibitory limit; that 
the mosque management had no objection to the functioning of the appellant's 
restaurant; that other establishments similarly situated were also allowed to C 
be functioning; and that since revision petition was filed by the police 
authorities after long lapse of time, the same should not have been entertained. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.1. The provisions of Rule 45(1-C) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor D 
Rules make it clear that the distance requirement is mandatory in nature. 
(759-El 
1.2. From the Commission's report, it is clear that two entrances to the 
mosque are within the mandatory distance. It may be that, as rightly noticed 
by the Single Judge of the High Court, on a particular occasion one of the E 
entrances may be closed. It bas also been noted that one of the entrances is 
used as an exit. The stress is on the nearest distance and not the most used 
distance. An attempt was made to show that the second entrance is most used 
one. Though there was an earlier report, but the same was not accepted by 
the High Court at some stage and, therefore, the Court Commissioner was 
appointed. There is no challenge to the correctness of the Court F 
Commissioner's report. That being so, the Single Judge and the Division 
Bench of the High Court were justified in their view that the restaurant in 
question is situated within the prohibitory distance of 75 metres. (760-D-E-Fl 
2. Even if it is accepted that there was any improper permission granted G 
by the authorities earlier that may render such permissions vulnerable so 
far as 32 vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of respondents. 
It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make 
one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in 
another case; direction should be given for doing an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.