Relocation Of Liquor Shop Not Violative Of Right To Trade Under Article 19(1)(g): Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State's directive for the relocation of a liquor shop does not violate the shop owner's right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as sale and consumption of liquor is not a fundamental right but a privilege, regulated by the State.
M/S Himalaya Traders, a partnership firm, initially operated a licensed composite liquor shop at Habibganj Pathak. Following directives, the shop was temporarily moved to a location in front of the Think Gas Petrol Pump. Subsequently, the petitioner received an order to shift the shop to Karol Road, approximately 6 kilometers away from its current location. The petitioner argued that the frequent relocations imposed undue financial burdens and questioned the validity of the reasons provided for the shifts. The petitioner challenged the order dated May 16, 2024, issued by the Collector (Excise) of Bhopal, directing the relocation of their composite liquor shop to Karol Road.
The petitioner, argued that the repeated relocations were unwarranted and imposed excessive costs. They claimed that the reasons for the relocation were unjustified and that such decisions should consider the financial implications on the business.
The respondents maintained that the State has the authority to regulate the location of liquor shops under its excise policies. They cited multiple complaints regarding the shop's location near the Think Gas Petrol Pump, emphasizing the need for relocation to maintain public order and safety.
Justice G. S. Ahluwalia referenced the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1995), which established that the rights under Article 19(1) are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions as outlined in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. The court stated that trade in liquor is inherently harmful and classified as "res extra commercium" (outside commerce), meaning it does not constitute a fundamental right and that the State has the authority to impose restrictions and even prohibit the trade of liquor to protect public health and maintain order.
The court further referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2004), affirming that dealing in liquor is a State-granted privilege rather than a fundamental right. The State's power to regulate liquor trade, including imposing restrictions and mandating relocations, aligns with its broader public health and safety responsibilities.
The High Court concluded that the State's directive for relocation of petitioner's shop did not violate Article 19(1)(g) as the trade in liquor is not a fundamental right and petitioner failed to demonstrate any statutory violation or discriminatory action by the State.
“it is clear that license to run a liquor shop is not a business but it is a privilege conferred by the State. Since the order under challenge is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India as well as counsel for petitioner also could not point out the violation of any statutory provision, this Court is of considered opinion that this Court cannot consider the correctness of the reasons assigned by respondents for shifting of the shop”
Justice Ahluwalia noted the State's authority to regulate liquor sales, including relocating shops, is derived from the Constitutional mandate under Article 47, which directs the state to endeavor to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs injurious to health. The state's actions were deemed reasonable and necessary to address public complaints and ensure compliance with excise policies.
Case title: M/S Himalaya Traders (A Partnership Firm) Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: WP-19955-2024