Protest against liquor store alone not enough reason to shift it: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Merely because some people have protested against a liquor store and want it shifted, it cannot be ordered to move out, the High Court of Karnataka has said.

Dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) against a wine store, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “Once licence has been accorded for vending of the liquors, some substantive rights accrued to the licencee to carry on the business and that cannot be turtled merely because some organizations and section of the public agitate for shifting. An argument to the contrary would put the rights of traders to the vagaries of public.”

A religious organisation; Karnataka Rajya Sudugadu Sidda Mahasangha and a women’s organisation; Pooja Jyothi Swasahaya Sangha had approached the High Court against the State and Excise Department against a wine store situated in Keresanthe village in Chikkamagaluru district.

They had earlier approached the Deputy Commissioner against the wine store who had directed the license holder to shift within 60 days. This order of November 2011 was challenged by the wine store owner before the Appellate Authority which had set aside the Commissioner’s order.

The two organisations then approached the High Court. They claimed that the Rules relating to granting license for liquor stores were violated. It was claimed that the area was inhabited by downtrodden communities and therefore the wine store should not be permitted to do its business there.

The HC however said that mere assertion is not enough. “Despite vehement submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner could not convince us that the impugned order has been made in breach of law more particularly the provisions of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise (General Condition of Licences) Rules, 1967. No statistics on population & demography have been produced to support the case for shifting the subject to wine shops. The mere assertion that the area is predominantly inhabited by the members of downtrodden communities would not come to the aid of the petitioner,” the HC said in its recent judgement.

Another argument of the petitioners was that there were educational institutions in the surroundings. The HC however said that the Appellate Authority had considered this issue.

“The Appellate Authority has specifically recorded these factual findings as to the distance at which the educational institutions & the hospitals are situated from the wine shop. True it is that the right to trade in liquors is not a fundamental right constitutionally guaranteed under Article 19(1)G. That being said, the right to trade is regulated by the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the Rules promulgated thereunder.”

Dismissing the PIL, the HC said, “In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed accordingly, costs having been made easy. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to lay challenge to the impugned order elsewhere following law and all contentions in that regard are kept open.”