THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS versus K. BALU AND ANR. on 23 February 2018

[2018] 1 S.C.R. 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 ANDDR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Liquor – Sale of – In the order passed by Supreme Court on11.7.2017, it was observed that the purpose of the directionscontained in the order dated 15.12.2016 is to deal with the sale ofliquor along and in the proximity of highways, which provideconnectivity between cities, towns and villages – The order did notprohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas – This Courtfurther clarified in the order that it will govern other municipalareas as well – In the subsequent order dated 13.12.2017, libertywas granted to the licence holders to submit a representation to thestate government that the same principle should apply to the licensedestablishments of the petitioners, as they applied to municipal areas– Having regard to these directions, the state governments wouldnot be precluded from determining whether the principle which hasbeen laid down by this Court in order dated 11.7.2017 should alsoapply to areas covered by local self-governing bodies and statutorydevelopment authorities – It is a question of fact as to whether anarea covered by a local self-governing body is proximate to amunicipal agglomeration or is sufficiently developed as to warrantthe application of the same principle – In deciding as to whetherthe principle which has been set down in the order dated 11.7.2017should be extended to a local self-governing body (or statutorydevelopment authority) the state governments would take recourseto all relevant circumstances including the nature and extent ofdevelopment in the area and the object underlying the directionprohibiting the sale of liquor on national and the state highways –

665

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

AThe use of the expression ‘municipal areas’ in order dated 11.7.2017does not prevent the state governments from making thatdetermination and from taking appropriate decisions consistentwith the object of the orders passed by this Court – It is left opento individual licensees to submit their representations to thecompetent authorities in the state governments if they are so advisedBupon which appropriate decisions may be taken by the stategovernments – MAs/IAs disposed of.

State of Tamil Nadu v. K Balu [2016] 11 SCR 244: (2017) 2 SCC 281; Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarhv. The Union Territory of Chandigarh SLP (C)CNo.10243 of 2017; APSRTC v. Abdul Kareem [2007]1 SCR 888 : (2007) 2 SCC 466; Cine ExhibitionsPrivate Limited v Collector, District Gwalior (2012) 6SCC 698; Hotel Sonai Beer Bar and Permit Room vState of Maharashtra SLP (C)No 19845/2017 –Dreferred to.

Case Law Reference

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.FFrom the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2013 and 28.03.2013of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 23773 of2012, 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,GPawan K. Sharma, Shashi Ranjan, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Dr. ManishSinghvi, Satyendra Kumar, Shailja Nanda Mishra, Irshad Ahmad, AshutoshDubey, Krishnendu Sarkar, Ms. Rajshri, Abhishek Chauhan, V. S. Rawat,Sushil Pandey, Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Ms. AnandiniKumari, P. V. Yogeswaran, R. B. Phookan, Ms. Neha Tandon, ShaileshHMadiyal, M. Yogesh Kanna, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, Ajay Marwah, Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for the Appellants.

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 Raj, Suvidutt M.S.,Ajay Marwah, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. This batch of MAs/IAsarises from the judgment dated 15 December 2016 rendered by thisCourt in State of Tamil Nadu v K Balu[1]and the subsequent ordersdated 31 March 2017 and 11 July 2017. The last of the above orderswas delivered in -----Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v The UnionTerritory of Chandigarh [2].

2. Though the reliefs which have been sought in the individualMAs/IAs may differ, during the course of the hearing there is a broadconsensus that for the purpose of the present proceedings, it would besufficient if this Court were to interpret paragraph 7 of the order dated11 July 2017. Paragraph 7 is extracted below:

“7. The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and inproximity of highways properly understood, which provideconnectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order doesnot prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. Thisclarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We haveconsidered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at restany ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs, beforethe Court.”

3. Learned counsel submitted that the expression ‘municipal areas’in the above paragraph was not intended to exclude areas within thejurisdiction of local self-governing bodies. Many of them, it is urged,may be developed in a manner similar to municipalities. Others, may begeographically proximate to an urban agglomeration. Hence it was urged 1 Civil Appeal 12164-12166/2016 2 Special Leave Petition (C) No.10243 of 2017

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athat an appropriate direction may be issued to obviate uncertainties inapplication, occasioning the need for repeated recourse to this Court or,as the case may be, litigation in the High Courts.

4. The application has been opposed by one of the contestingintervenors who placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in APSRTCBv Abdul Kareem[3] and Cine Exhibitions Private Limited vCollector, District Gwalior[4]. It has been urged that an application formodification or clarification of a judgment would fall within the realm ofa review and hence the present applications would not be maintainable.

5. Dealing with the above objection, the learned counsel appearingCon behalf of the applicants submit that they seek neither a review nor amodification of the orders passed by this Court. The attention of theCourt was drawn to an order dated 13 December 2017 passed by thisCourt in Writ Petition (C) Nos 964/2017 and 1050/2017 in the followingterms:

D“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think itappropriate to direct that each of the petitioners shall submit arepresentation within three weeks hence, stating that they areentitled to be governed by the principle as applicable to the municipalareas/MIDC developed areas. The individual facts shall bementioned in each representation. The same shall be consideredEby the competent authority and decided, keeping in view thejudgments of this Court, preferably within four weeks from thedate of receipt of the representation. Needless to say, therepresentation shall be decided by ascribing reasons and recordinga finding. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they can approach thisFCourt. With the aforesaid directions and liberty, the writ petitionsstand disposed of.”

The submission is that it will suffice if permission is granted to thestate governments to determine whether the applicants and similarlyplaced individuals are governed by the principle which was laid down byGthis Court in relation to municipal areas.

6. In Cine Exhibitions Private Limited (supra) a bench of twolearned Judges comprising of Justice KSP Radhakrishnan and JusticeDipak Misra, (as the learned Chief Justice then was) held thus:

3 (2007) 2 SCC 466H 4 (2012) 6 SCC 698

“Generally an application for correction of a typographical erroror omission of a word, etc. in a judgment or order would lie, but apetition which is intended to review an order or judgment underOrder 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in criminalproceedings except on the ground of an error apparent on theface of the record, could not be achieved by filing an applicationfor clarification/modification/recall or rehearing, for which aproperly constituted review is the remedy. (Id at page 703-704)”

In the present proceedings neither is the Court called upon toreview its judgment nor to modify its orders. In fact reliance has beenplaced on the orders passed by this Court on 11 July 2017 in ArriveSafe Society(supra) and subsequently in Hotel Sonai Beer Bar andPermit Room v State of Maharashtra[5] and the connected writ petitionsreferred to earlier.

7. In the order passed by this Court on 11 July 2017, it wasobserved that the purpose of the directions contained in the order dated15 December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in theproximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivitybetween cities, towns and villages. Having regard to this object it wasnoted that the order does not prohibit licensed establishments withinmunicipal areas. Indeed, in order to ensure that the order is uniformlyunderstood across the country, this Court clarified that it will governother municipal areas as well. In the subsequent order of this Courtdated 13 December 2017, liberty has been granted to the licence holdersto submit a representation to the state government that the same principleshould apply to the licensed establishments of the petitioners, as theyapply to municipal areas/MIDC developed areas (in relation to the Stateof Maharashtra).

8. Having regard to these directions, we are of the view that thestate governments would not be precluded from determining whetherthe principle which has been laid down by this Court in the order dated11 July 2017 in Arrive Safe Society (supra) should also apply to areascovered by local self-governing bodies and statutory developmentauthorities. We are inclined to allow the state governments to make thisdetermination since it is a question of fact as to whether an area coveredby a local self-governing body is proximate to a municipal agglomerationor is sufficiently developed as to warrant the application of the 5 Special Leave Petition (C) No 19845/2017

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asame principle. In deciding as to whether the principle which has beenset down in the order dated 11 July 2017 should be extended to a localself-governing body (or statutory development authority) the stategovernments would take recourse to all relevant circumstances includingthe nature and extent of development in the area and the object underlyingthe direction prohibiting the sale of liquor on national and the stateBhighways. The use of the expression ‘municipal areas’ in the orderdated 11 July 2017 does not prevent the state governments frommaking that determination and from taking appropriate decisionsconsistent with the object of the orders passed by this Court. Weleave it open to individual licensees to submit their representations toCthe competent authorities in the state governments if they are so advisedupon which appropriate decisions may be taken by the state governments.We have issued this general direction to obviate both litigation before theHigh Courts and repeated recourse to applications to this Court.