Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 31

In the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Civil Writ Petition No..of 2017

Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh through its President Harman

Singh Sidhu, aged 46 years, r/o House No. 268, Sector 21-A,

Chandigarh ........Petitioner

.IN
Vs.

1. State of Punjab through Financial Commissioner-cum-

W
Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Excise
LA
and Taxation, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 1, Chandigarh
VE

2. Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Punjab), Office of Excise

and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, Punjab


.LI

..Respondents
W
W
W
Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India in the nature of Certiorari to

quash the Punjab Excise (Amendment Bill) 2017

dated 22-6-2017 (annexed as Annexure P-3) the

same being ultra-vires and against the dictum of

the judgments passed by Honble Supreme Court

in State of Tamil Nadu & others vs. K. Balu &

another (P-4 and P-5);

And/ Or

.IN
A further Writ in the nature of Mandamus to stay

the implementation/ operation of impugned Bill

W
(P-3) during the pendency of the present petition
LA
in the Honble High Court;

And/ Or
VE

Any other direction/ order as this Honble High


.LI

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case at hand.


W
W
W

Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the petitioner is a resident of Chandigarh and being the

President of Arrive Safe Society is fully competent to invoke

the jurisdiction of this Honble High Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. A copy of list of office bearers of

the NGO and the resolution authorising the President of the

Society to file the instant petition are annexed as Annexure

P-1 & P-2, respectively.


2. That Arrive Safe Society is an Indian NGO working on

developing road safety programs to increase knowledge,

awareness and skills amongst all types of road users.

Besides educating the youth about liquor abuse, it also

works closely with the traffic police department to improve

the law enforcement regarding drunken driving. In addition

to being a Member of the Road Safety Councils of Punjab &

Chandigarh, the Organisation has earned several accolades

like the Volvo Sustainable Mobility Awards in 2015 &2013,

.IN
Prince Michael International Road Safety Award, CNN IBN

Award for National Service, State Award for Meritorious

Service, to name a few.


W
LA
3. That the petitioner had earlier filed CWP 25777 of 2012 in
VE

the Honble High Court whereby the Honble High Court

directed the States falling within its jurisdiction to remove


.LI

the liqour vends from Highways (be it National or State) as

also from the service lanes abbutting these Highways, in


W

order to curb the menace of free availability of liqour and


W

reduce the number of deaths because of drunken driving.


W

Not only this, the States have been directed to remove all

the advertisements, in any form, regarding sale of liqour

from Highways and the Authorities have been directed to

ensure that the liqour vends are neither visible nor

accessible from the Highways. That the States of Haryana

and Punjab approached the Honble Supreme Court and the

petitioner NGO was arrayed as a respondent in those

proceedings.

4. That it is because of constant efforts put in by the petitioner,


with no private interests, that the Honble Supreme Court of

India hadissued following directions on 15-12-2016, while

disposing of a bunch of petitions:

All states and union territories shall forthwithcease and

desist from granting licences for the sale ofliquor along

national and state highways;

(ii) The prohibition contained in (i) above shallextend to and

include stretches of such highways whichfall within the limits

.IN
of a municipal corporation, city,town or local authority;

(iii) The existing licences which have already beenrenewed

W
prior to the date of this order shall continueuntil the term of
LA
the licence expires but no later than1 April 2017;

(iv) All signages and advertisements of theavailability of


VE

liquor shall be prohibited and existingones removed forthwith


.LI

both on national and statehighways;


W

(v) No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i)visible from a

national or state highway; (ii) directlyaccessible from a


W

national or state highway and (iii)situated within a distance


W

of 500 metres of the outeredge of the national or state

highway or of a servicelane along the highway.

(vi) All States and Union territories are mandated tostrictly

enforce the above directions. The ChiefSecretaries and

Directors General of Police shallwithin one month chalk out a

plan for enforcement inconsultation with the state revenue

and homedepartments. Responsibility shall be assigned inter

alia to District Collectors and Superintendents ofPolice and


other competent authorities. Complianceshall be strictly

monitored by calling for fortnightlyreports on action taken.

(vii) These directions issue under Article 142 of the

Constitution.

A copy of the judgment titled as State of Tamil Nadu &

others vs. K. Balu & another is appended as Annexure P-4.

5. That after sometime, another bunch of petitions was filed in

the Honble Supreme Court by various State Governments

.IN
and affected parties, seeking clarification/ modification/

recalling/ review of the order dated 15-12-2016. However

W
vide another judgment dated 31-3-2017 (Annexure P-5) all
LA
those interim applications were disposed off.
VE

6. That State of Punjab amongst few other States did not file

any interim application for clarification/ modification/


.LI

recalling/ review of the order dated 15-12-2016, as is


W

recorded in judgment dated 31-3-2017.


W

7. That the main grounds urged by various applicants in

different interim applications were that they were not given a


W

hearing when the judgment (P-3) dated 15-12-2016 was

passed, that the judgment (P-3) transgressed the limitations

on constitutional power conferred by Article 142 of

Constitution that the judgment should be applicable to only

national highways and not state highways, that the

judgment is in the nature of judicial policy making and is

thus unconstitutional, extension of time for implemenation of

judgment dated 15-12-2016, that the ban on sale of alcohol


is limited to liqour vends situtated along national and state

highways and not to any other place where liqour is sold be

it club, hotel, restraunt, pub etc.

8. That the judgment dated 15-12-2016 was thus suitably

modified, to the following extent:

In the case of areas comprised in local bodies with a

population of20,000 people or less, the distance of 500

metres shall stand reduced to220 metres.

.IN
In the case of those licences for the sale of liquor

which have beenrenewed prior to 15 December 2016 and the

W
excise year of theconcerned state is to end on a date falling
LA
on or after 1 April 2017, theexisting licence shall continue

until the term of the licence expires but inany event not later
VE

than 30 September 2017


.LI

Insofar as the States of Meghalaya and Sikkim are

concerned, itwould suffice if the two states are exempted


W

only from the application ofthe 500 metre distance


W

requirement provided in paragraph 24(v)(iii) ofthe judgment


W

of this Court on 15 December 2016.

9. That out of curiousity the State of Kerala tried to bypass the

judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court (P-4)

andduring the pendency of interim applications (filed after

the pronouncement of judgment annexure P-4) sought a

legal opinion of the then Attorney General. Copy of the

opinion is appended as Annexure P-6. As per the opinion,

which cannot substitute the dictum laid down by a Three

Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court headed by the


Chief Justice of India, The judgment does not bring within

its sweep restrauns and hotels who serve liqour within thier

premises.

10. That to further propel the legal opinion various interim

applications were moved in the Honble Supreme Court of

India, which disposed of all those applications by holding as

under:

Finally we clarify that we are not inclined to issue a

.IN
direction interms as sought by Shri Aryama Sundaram,

learned senior counsel andother counsel that the judgment

W
of this Court should be clarified so as toapply only to shops

involving sale of liquor. Since the object of thedirection is to


LA
prevent drunken driving, no such relaxation can be
VE

madewhich would defeat the object which is sought to be

achieved.Consequently, the directions issued by this Court


.LI

cannot be read down,as suggested. The directions shall be


W

read, as they stand.


W

Copy of the judgment is Annexure P-5.


W

11. That it seems that the Government of Punjab has

brought the impugned amendment dated 22-6-2017 (P-3) to

the Punjab Excise act 1914, just to dodge the Supreme Court

orders.

12. That through the present petition, the petitioner seeks

the indulgence of the Honble High Court, particularly in the

nature of Certiorari to quash the Punjab Excise (Amendment

Bill) 2017 dated 22-6-2017 (annexed as Annexure P-3) and

a further writ of Mandamus to stay the implementation/


operation of impugned Notification (P-3) during the

pendency of the present petition in the Honble High Courton

the basis of following grounds:

(A) That the singular and acme intent and purpose behind

the Honble Supreme Court in issuing the directions

afore, being to exterminate the bane of drunken driving

from the Highways of this country and for such

purpose, to asphyxiate the sources and availability of

liqour from National and State Highways the ardous job

.IN
was assigned to the Chief Secretaries and Director

General of Police of respective States. However the

W
State government instead of recognising the concern of
LA
the Supreme Court in trying to remedy the mischief
VE

through its judgment has shown a narrow pedantic

approach just for the sake of revenue.


.LI

(B) That the directions of the Honble Supreme Court of


W

India as reproduced above leave no ambiguity in

stating that the ban on sale of liqour within a buffer


W

distance is not only qua the liqour vends rather applies


W

to all such places where liqour is sold within a vicinity

of 500 m of National or State Highways.

(C) That the impugned amendement uses a very vague

term of notified place and permits the sale of liqour at

such notified places, hotels, clubs and restruants. It is

humbly submitted that the term would definitely be

misused to mean a tavern as a notified place and the

judgment of the Honble Supreme Court as also the


intent with which it was passed in National Interest

would be diluted.

(D) That the impugned amendment cleverly tries and fails

to distinguish between sale of liqour and supply of

liqour. Any liqour sold has to be supplied or served or

handed over to the prospective buyer then be he/ she

parting with money at a vend or restraunt or club. But

as per the impugend amendment the sale is different

from supply and is meant to be consumed within the

.IN
premises. While delivering the verdict (P-4 and P-5) the

Honble Supreme Court was aware of these tantrums

W
regarding concumption in premises and consumption
LA
off premises and thus they passed the direction that
VE

All states and union territories shall forthwithcease

and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor


.LI

along national and state highways.


W

(E) That the State of Punjab through the impugned

amendment has tried to modify the judgment of the


W

Honble Supreme Court as per its own convinience and


W

has added an additional phrase, regarding motorable or

walking distance of 500 m, which phrase does not exist

in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court. As

would be clear, the Honble Supreme Court directed

that, No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i)visible

from a national or state highway; (ii) directlyaccessible

from a national or state highway and (iii)situated within

a distance of 500 metres of the outeredge of the

national or state highway or of a servicelane along the


highway. This direction nowhere uses the word

motorable or walking and it is only an innovation to

evade the implimentation of the judgment of the

Supreme Court.

(F) That logically if a measurement of 500 m is to be from

the outer edge of the National/ State highway or its

service lane, then the same has to be done in a straight

line from the highway while disregarding all illogical

and artificial deviations, detours and deflections meant

.IN
solely to increase the distance. Measuring a distance in

a straight line from the outer edge of the highway is

W
the best way to implicitly adhere to the spirit of the
LA
directions of the Honble Supreme Court to eliminate
VE

the availability of liqour to the driver of a vehicle plying

on a highway.
.LI

(G) That the respondents seem to have misunderstood the


W

intention/ ratio of the judgment passed by the Honble

Supreme Court of India. The logical reason of the


W

judgment (P-4 and P-5) is to curb the menace of


W

drunken driving and temptation caused because of sale

of liquor along the National/ State Highways. The

impugned amendment (P-3) is not only a clear

disregard to the directions of the Honble High Court

but is rather a bonanza for those who would enjoy the

handy availability of alcohol and create nuisance for the

rest.
(H) That if the impugned amendment is allowed to operate

then liquor vends camouflaged as a restaurant/ hotel or

club could be found everywhere along the highways

without any consideration of public health, public

morality, public peace, and would resultantly lead to

traffic chaos, health hazard and frequent road

accidents.

(I) That the statement of objects and reasons of the

impugned amendment stresses and has wrongly linked

.IN
the menance of drunken driving with that of

unemployment. That on an earlier occassion the

W
owners of several bars and hotels in Chandigarh had
LA
approached the Honble High Court with a view to flout

the orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court, and


VE

linked thier cause with that to unemployment however


.LI

thier petition was dismissed by the Honble High Court

on 18-4-2017. Copy of the order is appended as


W

Annexure P-7.
W

(J) The impugned amendment is nothing short of a political


W

response with an ulterior motive to dismantle the

foundation of the verdict given by the Honble Supreme

Court. When the highest tribunal in our land has

declared what ought to be done to prevent the

mishappenings on the roads, now the State has risen

and tried to change the rules of the game. The State of

Punjab brought yet another amendment in 2016 to the

Excise Act, which too was dealt with by the Honble

Supreme Court in its judgment dated 15-12-2016, in


the following words:

We are of the view that the exercise of this

enabling power by the Stategovernment must not

obstruct or impede the overwhelming public

interest inensuring that the sale of liquor along

national or state highways should bediscontinued

having regard to the danger to road safety.

(K) That it is settled law by a catena of decisions of this

.IN
Court that the legislature cannot directly annul a

judgment of a court. The legislative function consists in

W
"making" law [Article 245 of the Constitution] and not

in "declaring" what the law shall be [Article 141 of the


LA
Constitution]. If the legislature were at liberty to annul
VE

judgments of courts, the ghost of bills of attainder will

revisit us to enable legislatures to pass legislative


.LI

judgments on matters which are inter- parties.


W

(L) That the State is under obligation to act fairly without


W

ill will or malice- in fact or in law however the present

amenmdment done by the State of Punjab can


W

befittingly be termed as legal malice, which means

something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done

wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable

cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling

and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the

rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the

State, it can never be a case of personal ill-will orspite

on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with


an oblique or indirect object. It means exercise of

statutory power for "purposes foreign to those for

which it is in law intended." It means conscious

violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a

depraved inclination on the part of the authority to

disregard the rights of others, which intent is

manifested by its injurious acts.

(M) That the effect of a policy decision taken by the State is

to be considered having regard to the provisions

.IN
contained in Article 47 of the Constitution of India as

also its power of regulation and control in respect of

W
the trade in terms of the provisions of the Excise Act.
LA
That Article 47 of the Constitution enjoins upon the
VE

State to prohibit consumption of intoxicating drink like

liquor, which falls for consideration in the present case


.LI

and, therefore, the right to trade or business in potable

liquor is subject also to the provisions of the said


W

article. Article 47 of the Constitution considers


W

intoxicating drinks and drugs as injurious to health and


W

impeding the raising of level of nutrition and the

standard of living of the people and improvement of the

public health. It, therefore, ordains the State to bring

about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating

drinks which obviously include liquor, except for

medicinal purposes. Article 47 is one of the directive

principles which is fundamental in the governance of

the country. The State has, therefore, the power to

completely prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession,


distribution and consumption of potable liquor as a

beverage, both because it is inherently a dangerous

article of consumption and also because of the directive

principle contained in Article 47, except when it is used

and consumed for medicinal purposes.

(N) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v.

The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others,

AIR1981 Supreme Court 746, observed:-

.IN
"The right to life enshrined in Art.21 cannot be

restricted to mere animal existence. It means

W
something much more than just physical survival. The
LA
right to life includes the right to live with human dignity

and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare
VE

necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing

and shelter over the head and facilities for reading,


.LI

writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely


W

moving about the mixing and commingling with fellow


W

human beings."
W

(O) Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India have

been subject matter of consideration in several

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been

held that there is no fundamental right to do trade or

business in intoxicants, such a right being "res extra

commercium", the same being inherently harmful.

In Synthetics & Chemicals Limited v. State of UP and others,

AIR 1990 SC 1927, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.L.Oza, in his

concurring opinion, observed:-


The concept of royal privilege has been derived

historically from England as Great Britain continues to be a

monarchy with democracy. The Head of the State is the

Crown. It was on these bases that what has not been

provided for was supposed to be the privilege of the Crown

but under Indian Constitution the Head of the State and the

three functionaries of the State, the Executive, the

Legislature and the Judiciary have their powers defined

under the Constitution. There is nothing like privilege vested

.IN
in any one of the functionaries of the State and in the

background of this basic features of our Constitution the

W
doctrine of privilege is difficult to reconcile with, then if we
LA
examine this privilege of trading in commodities injurious to

health and dangerous to life in the context of Article 21 and


VE

Article 47 of our Constitution.


.LI

13. That the main law points are involved in the present
W

Writ Petition:
W

(a) Whether the impugned amendment (P-3) is ultra-vires


W

and against the law settled by the Honble Supreme

Court vide judgments P-4 and P-5?

(b) Whether the action of the respondents in bringing out

the impugned amendment is a colourable exercise of

power and only an attempt to hoodwink the ratio of

the judgment passed by the Honble Suprem Court and

whether such an act can ever be justified in the eyes

of law?
(c) Whether impugend amendment would override the

Constitutional guarantees enshrined in Article 21 and

Article 47 ofthe Constitution of India?

14. That no other such or similar petition to challenge the

impugned amendment (P-3), has been earlier filed by the

petitioner either in this Honble High Court or in the Honble

Supreme Court of India.

.IN
15. That there is no other equally efficacious/ alternate

remedy by way of appeal or revision available to the

W
petitioner except to approach the Honble High Court under
LA
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
VE

It is therefore prayed that the Honble Court may be


.LI

pleased to:
W

(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash


W

the Punjab Excise (Amendment Bill) 2017

dated 22-6-2017 (annexed as Annexure P-3)


W

the same being ultra-vires and against the

dictum of the judgments passed by Honble

Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu & others

vs. K. Balu & another (P-4 and P-5);

(ii) Issue a further Writ in the nature of Mandamus

to stay the implementation/ operation of

impugned Bill (P-3) during the pendency of the

present petition in the Honble High Court;


(iii) Any other direction/ order as this Honble High

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case at hand.

(iv) Exempt the petitioner from filing certified

copies of Annexures.

(v) Exempt the petitioner from serving advance

copies of notices upon the respondents

.IN
Dated: 24-6-2017 (Petitioner)

Chandigarh

W(Harman Singh Sidhu)


LA
Through Counsel
VE

(Ravi Kamal Gupta) Advocate


.LI

Counsel for the petitioner


W
W

Verification
W

Verified that the contents of paras no. 1 to 15 are true and correct

to the best of my knowledge and nothing material has been kept

concealed therein.

Dated: 24-6-2017 (Petitioner)

Chandigarh (Harman Singh Sidhu)


In the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Civil Writ Petition No..of 2017

Arrive Safe Society Vs. State of Punjab

Affidavit of Harman Singh Sidhu, r/o House No. 268, Sector 21-A,
Chandigarh- President, Arrive Safe Society.

.IN
I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:

W
1. That the deponent is petitioner in the above stated CWP. He is
fully conversant with the facts of the case and is competent to file
LA
the instant Affidavit.

2. That the deponent has gone through the contents of the instant
VE

petition. Same are true and correct as per the knowledge of the
deponent. The deponent shall remain bound by them.
.LI

3. The instant petition is not in the nature of PIL.


W

Chandigarh Deponent
W

Dated: (Harman Singh Sidhu)


W

Verification

Verified that the contents of paras no. 1 to 3 of the above affidavit of


mine are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing
material has been kept concealed therein.

Chandigarh Deponent

Dated: (Harman Singh Sidhu)


In the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Civil Writ Petition No..of 2017

Arrive Safe Society Vs. State of Punjab & another

List of Dates and Events

.IN
Arrive Safe Society is an Indian NGO working on

W
developing road safety programs to increase knowledge, awareness

and skills amongst all types of road users. Besides educating the
LA
youth about liquor abuse, it also works closely with the traffic police
VE

department to improve the law enforcement regarding drunken

driving. On a petition filed by the petitioner (i.e. CWP 25777 of


.LI

2012 in the Honble High Court) directions were issued to the

States of Haryana and Punjab to remove the liqour vends from


W

Highways (be it National or State) as also from the service lanes


W

abbutting these Highways, in order to curb the menace of free


W

availability of liqour and reduce the number of deaths because of

drunken driving. Not only this, the States have been directed to

remove all the advertisements, in any form, regarding sale of

liqour from Highways and the Authorities have been directed to

ensure that the liqour vends are neither visible nor accessible from

the Highways. That the States of Haryana and Punjab approached

the Honble Supreme Court and the petitioner NGO was arrayed as

a respondent in those proceedings.


15-12-2016: While disposing of a bunch of petitions, the

Honble Supreme Court of India gave following

directions:

All states and union territories shall forthwithcease

and desist from granting licences for the sale ofliquor

along national and state highways;

(ii) The prohibition contained in (i) above shallextend to

and include stretches of such highways whichfall within

.IN
the limits of a municipal corporation, city,town or local

authority;

(iii) The existing


W
licences which have already
LA
beenrenewed prior to the date of this order shall

continueuntil the term of the licence expires but no


VE

later than1 April 2017;


.LI

(iv) All signages and advertisements of theavailability

of liquor shall be prohibited and existingones removed


W

forthwith both on national and statehighways;


W

(v) No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i)visible from


W

a national or state highway; (ii) directlyaccessible from

a national or state highway and (iii)situated within a

distance of 500 metres of the outeredge of the national

or state highway or of a servicelane along the highway.

(vi) All States and Union territories are mandated

tostrictly enforce the above directions. The

ChiefSecretaries and Directors General of Police

shallwithin one month chalk out a plan for enforcement


inconsultation with the state revenue and

homedepartments. Responsibility shall be assigned

inter alia to District Collectors and Superintendents

ofPolice and other competent authorities.

Complianceshall be strictly monitored by calling for

fortnightly reports on action taken.

(vii) These directions issue under Article 142 of the

Constitution.

.IN
A copy of the judgment titled as State of Tamil Nadu &

others vs. K. Balu & another is appended as Annexure P-4.

Susbeqeuntly various State


W
Governments and affected
LA
parties filed another bunch of petitions was filed in the

Honble Supreme Court seeking clarification/ modification/


VE

recalling/ review of the order dated 15-12-2016. That State


.LI

of Punjab amongst few other States did not file any interim

application after disposal of the case on 15-12-2016.


W

31-3-2017: The judgment dated 15-12-2016 was thus


W

suitably modified, to the following extent:


W

In the case of areas comprised in local bodies

with a population of 20,000 people or less, the distance

of 500 metres shall stand reduced to220 metres.

In the case of those licences for the sale of liquor

which have beenrenewed prior to 15 December 2016

and the excise year of theconcerned state is to end on

a date falling on or after 1 April 2017, theexisting

licence shall continue until the term of the licence


expires but inany event not later than 30 September

2017

Insofar as the States of Meghalaya and Sikkim

are concerned, itwould suffice if the two states are

exempted only from the application ofthe 500 metre

distance requirement provided in paragraph 24(v)(iii)

ofthe judgment of this Court on 15 December 2016.

Finally we clarify that we are not inclined to issue

.IN
a direction interms as sought by Shri Aryama

Sundaram, learned senior counsel andother counsel

W
that the judgment of this Court should be clarified so as

toapply only to shops involving sale of liquor. Since the


LA
object of thedirection is to prevent drunken driving, no
VE

such relaxation can be made which would defeat the

object which is sought to be achieved.Consequently,


.LI

the directions issued by this Court cannot be read


W

down,as suggested. The directions shall be read, as

they stand.
W

That the need for giving abovesaid clarification arose


W

because of a legal opinion (Annexure P-6) given by the then

Attorney General. As per the opinion, which cannot

substitute the dictum laid down by a Three Judge Bench of

the Honble Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of

India, The judgment does not bring within its sweep

restaurants and hotels who serve liqour within their

premises.

22-6-2017: The Government of Punjab brought the


impugned amendment (P-3) to the Punjab

Excise act 1914, just to dodge the Supreme

Court orders.

Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks the

indulgence of the Honble High Court, particularly in the

nature of Certiorari to quash the Punjab Excise (Amendment

Bill) 2017 dated 22-6-2017 (annexed as Annexure P-3) and

.IN
a further writ of Mandamus to stay the implementation/

operation of impugned Notification (P-3) during the

W
pendency of the present petition in the Honble High Court.
LA
The impugned amendment is nothing short of a political

response with an ulterior motive to dismantle the foundation


VE

of the verdict given by the Honble Supreme Court.


.LI

Hence the present CWP.


W
W

Dated: 24-6-2017
W

Chandigarh (Ravi Kamal Gupta) Advocate

Counsel for the petitioner


In the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Civil Writ Petition No..of 2017

Arrive Safe Society Vs. State of Punjab & another

Sr. Particulars Dated Page Court


NO. No. Fee
A Urgent Form 24-6-2017 3.00
1. List of dates and events 24-6-2017 A-E
2. Civil Writ Petition 24-6-2017 1-17 50.00
3. Affidavit in support 27-6-2017 18

.IN
4. Annexure P-1 (List of office 23-6-2017 19 1.00
bearers)
5. Annexure P-2 (Resolution) 23-6-2017 20 1.00
6. Annexure
Amendment)
P-3 (Impugned

W
22-6-2017 21-26 6.00
LA
7. Annexure P-4 (Supreme Court 15-12-2016 27-50 6.00
Judgment)
8. Annexure P-5 (Supreme Court 31-3-2017 51-82 6.00
VE

Judgment)
9. Annexure P-6 (Legal Opinion) 24-2-2017 83-85 2.00
10. Annexure P-7 (High Court 18-4-2017 86-88 4.00
.LI

Judgment)
11. Power of Attorney 24-6-2017 89 3.00
12. Certificate of registration 9-1-2007 90 1.00
W

Total court fee 83.00


W

Notes:

1. Relevant Statute: Constitution of India and Punjab Excise Act


W

1914.

2. Main Law points are canvassed at page no. 15 and para no.13 of
the instant CWP.

3. No Caveat/ Notice has been received in this case.

4. Similar cases: NIL.

5. Instant petition is not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

Dated: 24-6-2017 (Ravi Kamal Gupta) Advocate

Chandigarh Counsel for the petitioner


W
W
W
.LI
VE
LA
P/632/06

W
.IN
Annexure P-3

Statement of Objects and Reasons

In a recent Judicial pronouncement, sale of liqour

within 500 meters of State and National Highways has been

prohibited. The pronouncement is aimed at checking drunken

driving and the resultant losses. However, there are a large

.IN
number of hotels, restaurants, clubs and other enclosed

notified places where liqour is sold for in-situ consumption.

W
These are a part of the hospitality and tourism industry
LA
which generates substantial employment in the State. The

absence of supply of liqour in hotels, restaurants, clubs etc.


VE

has seriously affected thier existence and even their partial

clisure may create substantial unemployment in the State.


.LI

2.1 The State of Punjab has, thus, decided to amend the


W

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 to ensure thatthe hotels,


W

restaurants, clubs and other notified places are allowed


W

supply of alcohol only for consumption within their

premises to secure livelihood of a large segment of

States population. However, there shall be a restriction

on opening of liqour vends on or within 500 meters of

the highways.

Captain Amarinder Singh

Chief Minister, Punjab


Punjab Vidhan Sabha

Bill No. 19- PLA- 2017

The Punjab Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2017

Bill

Further to amend the Punjab Excise act 1914

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Punjab in the

Sixty-eighth Year of the Republic of India as follows:

.IN
1. (1) This Act may be called the Punjab Excise (amendment)

Act, 2017.
W
LA
(2) It shall come into force on and with effect from the date

of its publication in the Official Gazette.


VE

2. In the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as


.LI

the principal Act) in section 3:


W

(i) after clause (2), the following clause shall be inserted,


W

namely:-
W

(2-a) Club means any person or body of persons providing

services, facilities or advantages, primarily to its members, for a

subscription or any other amount;

(ii) After Clause (11), the following clause shall be inserted,

namely:
(11-a) Hotel includes a building or part of a building

where residential accommodation is by way of business, provided

for a monetary consideration;

(iii) after clause (14), the following clause shall be inserted

namely:-

(14-a) liquor vends shall mean retail shops that are

licensed to sell liquor and shall not include any hotels, clubs or

.IN
restaurants or any notified place;

W
(iv) after clause (16-a), the following clause shall be inserted,
LA
namely:-
VE

(16-b) notified place means any building or part of a

building and the premises appurtenant thereto and any specifically


.LI

demarcated land wherein the supply of liquor in terms of a license


W

is permitted for consumption within such notified place;


W
W

(v) after clause (18), the following clause shall be inserted,

namely:-

(18-a) sale of liquor means the transfer of liquor for

consideration by a liquor vend for consumption by the purchaser

at a place other than the premises of the liquor vend; and

(vi) after clause (19), the following clause shall be inserted,

namely:-
(19-a) supply of liquor means the provision of liquor for

consideration at clubs, hotels, restaurants and any other notified

place on the basis of a licence that is issued on the condition that

such liquor shall be consumed within the premises of such hotel,

club, restaurant or other notified place;

3. In the principal Act, for section 26-A, the following section

shall be substitutted, namely:-

.IN
26-A (1) The sale of liqour shall be permitted only through

licensed liqour vends which shall not be located within

W
motorable or walking distance of 500 meters from the outer
LA
rande of the National or State Highway or by a service lane

along such highway and such liqour vends shall neither be


VE

directly visible nor accessible from such National or State


.LI

Highway

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgmen,


W

decree or order of any court, tribunal or authority, every


W

club, hotel, restaurant or any notified place having a licence


W

shall be entitled to engage in the supply of liqour to

members, guests or other persons for consumption of such

liqour within the premises of such club, hotel, restaurant or

notified place, irrespective of whether such club, hotel,

restaurant or notified place, is located on or near any

National or State Highway

Provided that, if any person obtains permit for serving

of liqour at a private place, then such place shall be

considered as notified place for the purpose of this section.


(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment,

decree or order of any court, tribunal or any other authority,

any licence issued to any club, hotel, restaurant or other

notified place for the sale of liqour shall be deemed to have

been and always be deemed to have been issued for the

supply of liqour and all relevant provisions of this Act and the

rules made thereunder shall continue to apply as they did for

sale of liqour.

Explanation:- For the removal of doubt, it is herbey clarified

.IN
that all taxes, duties, cess or other levies as applicable to

sale of liqour shall apply to supply of liqour unless otherwise

W
specified in this or any other Act, rule or notification made
LA
thereunder.
VE
.LI
W
W
W
Financial Implication

There is no direct financial implication in the proposed

amendment in the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. These amendments

would have an indirect positive impact on future excise revenue

receipts of State exchequer.

The Governor has, in pursuance of clause (1) and (3) of

Article 207 of the Constitution of India, recommended to the

.IN
Punjab Legislative Assembly, the introduction and consideration of

the Bill.

W
LA
Chandigarh: Shashi Lakhanpal Mishra
VE

The 22nd June 2017 Secretary


.LI
W

N.B. The above Bill was published in the Punjab Government

Gazette (Extraordinary) dated the 22nd June 2017 under the


W

proviso to rule 121 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of


W

Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Punjab Legislative

Assembly).

(True Copy)

Advocate