Use discretion to fix liquor shop spots: Supreme Court
In December 2016, the apex court had directed all the states to re-locate locate liquor shops within 500 metres of highways to prevent road accidents.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has allowed the state governments to use their discretion to ascertain whether a liquor shop can be permitted to be located within 500 metres of national/state highways passing through panchayats and municipal areas.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava Roy and D.Y. Chandrachud passed this order on applications filed by various States, including Kerala and Rajasthan seeking permission for location of such shops.
In December 2016, the apex court had directed all the states to re-locate locate liquor shops within 500 metres of highways to prevent road accidents. This was further relaxed in July 2017 taking into consideration the hilly terrain and other parameters.
In a batch of application the States contended that the condition of 500 metres was causing problems in panchayats and municipal areas and in some cases a panchayat and municipality may be adjoining each other.
Taking note of these submissions, the Bench in its clarification order said having regard to these directions, we are of the view that the state governments would not be precluded from determining whether the principle which has been laid down by this Court in the order dated 11 July 2017 should also apply to areas covered by local self governing bodies and statutory development authorities.”
The bench said “We are inclined to allow the state governments to make this determination since it is a question of fact as to whether an area covered by a local self-governing body is proximate to a municipal agglomeration or is sufficiently developed as to warrant the application of the same principle. The use of the expression “municipal areas” in the order dated 11 July 2017 does not prevent the state governments from making that determination and from taking appropriate decisions consistent with the object of the orders passed by this court.”