Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     31 March 2010

Citizen has no fundamental right to sell liquor: SC

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that a citizen has no fundamental right to engage in the sale of liquor as govt alone has the right to regulate the business in public interest.

 

A bench of Justices R V Raveendran and Surinder Singh Nijjar said the government also has the right to consider grant of licenses as per the rules in force and not at the time when the applications are made for running the business.

 

"Having regard to the fact that the state has exclusive privilege to manufacture and sale of liquor and no citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor, the applicant did not have a vested right to get a licence.

 

"Where there is no vested right, the application for licence requires verification, inspection and processing. In such circumstances, it has to be held that the consideration of application of FL (foreign liquor)-3 licence should be only with reference to the rules/law prevailing or in force on the date of consideration of the application by the excise authorities, with reference to the law and not as on the date of application," the bench said in a recent order.

 

The apex court passed the order while dismissing a bunch of appeals filed by resort and hotel owners in Kerala challenging the state government's decision not to grant them licenses for sale of liquor.

 

The state had refused to grant the licenses as the applicants did not conform to the stipulations of at least being a two-star hotels as per the tourism policy evolved by the government.

 

It was the contention of the petitioners "Six Holiday Resorts" and others that by notification dated 20.2.2002, the Foreign Liquor Rules were amended by foreign Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 2002, with retrospective effect from 1.7.2001 with a sub-Rule (3) of Rule 13 which barred hotels not conforming to the standards. The applications were made prior to the amendment.

 

Rejecting the argument, the apex court said where the rule requires grant of a licence subject to fulfillment of certain eligibility criteria either to safeguard public interest or to maintain efficiency in administration; the authorities are at liberty to regulate the business.

 

"Where the applicant for licence does not have a vested interest for grant of licence and where grant of licence depends on various factors or eligibility criteria and public interest, the consideration should be with reference to the law applicable on the date when the authority considers applications for grant of licences and not with reference to the date of application," the apex court. 



Learning

 13 Replies

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     31 March 2010

Rightly ruled. There is scope to criticize the judgment.

Thanks for information!

Sanjeev Panda (Advocate)     31 March 2010

Another case uphelding the state monopoly in carrying business to the exclusion of others. Yes I do agree with Dr. V.N. Tripathi that the judgment leaves scope for controvesy, as it touches Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution.

Rajan Salvi (Lawyer)     31 March 2010

Morality cannot be enforced by legislation .... what a man wants to do .. he will do [ with due respect to the police man around the corner]

1 Like

bhagwat patil (Property due diligence 9422773303)     31 March 2010

thanks for information

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     31 March 2010

Correction -

I am sorry friends ! Don't you see my comment self contradictory !

Kindly read,  "there is no scope to criticize the judgment."

Parthasarathi Loganathan (Advocate)     31 March 2010

Judgements can be debatable but needs to be respected as tomoorow it would become statutes

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     01 April 2010

Parthsarathi sir, there are chances that they become precedents.... not statutes...   :D

Parthasarathi Loganathan (Advocate)     01 April 2010

All Judicial precedents are one of the sources of Enactments. Today'sJudgements are Tommorrow's Law

G. ARAVINTHAN (Legal Consultant / Solicitor)     02 April 2010

Yes we need to follow judgments....even we have contradictory view over that

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     03 April 2010

All the rights are not fundamental rights.

Few are fundamental rights; some are constitutional rights; rest are only - rights.

It is right to say that, -  saling liqure, is not fundamental right; but consuming liquire is - a fundamental right of an indian citizen.

Is there any doubt of any one?

Parthasarathi Loganathan (Advocate)     03 April 2010

Guptaji..Pls correct yourself.  Drinking liquour is a social stigma

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     03 April 2010

parthasarathiji. ...... agreed. it is legal stigma, but not barred by any law, therefore a personal right under art 21 of coi.

Sanjeev Panda (Advocate)     03 April 2010

I agree one can enjoy liquor in the cool comfort of his home and may take as it fundamental right, right to live implict within the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But the FR are not absolute rights and can be restricted on the grounds of public order, public decency or morality, incitement to offence. Therefore, a state may prohibit sale of liquor within its territory. Further the Directive Principle of the state policy as mentioned under Part IV of the Constitution of India (Article 47) also enjoins upon the state to take steps to improve public health  and endeavour to bring about prohibition of alcholic drinks which are injurious to health.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register