'Much Requires To Be Done:' Kerala High Court Urges Authorities To Keep A Check On Nuisance Caused Around Liquor Outlets

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday chose to keep monitoring the progress in the situation around liquor stores in the State till there were no complaints of harassment or nuisance brought about by the nearby residents.

Justice Devan Ramachandran while pointing to a letter he had received recently complaining of people still queuing up in front of a particular liquor store, remarked:

"The intent of the Court is to ensure that ordinary citizens who do not drink are spared of nuisance caused by anti-social elements; not to create a 5-star facility for drinkers. My concern is that every complaint I receive is from someone who does not drink alleging harassment from people lining up in front of liquor stores."

A copy of this letter has been added to the case file.

The Court then noted that it is an 'open secret' that every liquor shop still causes great vexation to the women and children in the neighbouring area, and parents are concerned that it poses a bad influence to the next generation. On that note, the Court mentioned in its order:

"Though marginal progress appears to have to been made, the situation is still not acceptable, much less, satisfactory. Certainly much requires to be done in the matter, so this Court is surely justified to keep this contempt petition pending."

Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to be called on 23rd November, by which time the respondents were expected to apprise the Court as to the steps taken in the case.

Government Pleader S Kannan submitted that as per the instructions of the Court during the last hearing of the case, he had placed on record a report evidencing the number of liquor outlets in the State equipped with a walk-in facility. It was also submitted that now the matter is pending before the government and that strict directions have been communicated in this regard.

Another significant submission made by the State was that contrary to the situation in other States, one liquor store in Kerala caters to the needs of approximately one lakh consumers while in other States the ratio was significantly lesser. Therefore, the government was proposing to establish 175 new liquor stalls in the State. 

On a lighter vein, the Court remarked:

"Is that because we have fewer retail shops or because we drink more?"

Thereafter, the Bench noted that the Government was looking into this 'peculiar' problem faced by the State. However, it was clarified that the Court is not concerned about the difficulties faced by BEVCO or the State, with particular emphasis that the problems faced by the citizens due to the same impinged upon their constitutional right to live with dignity.

"One thing that is non-negotiable is that because of the functioning of these shops, harassment and nuisance in the neighbourhood have increased by multiple folds. Even now this Court receives letters from concerned citizens about the same. It is this particular issue that is on the mind of this court and I cannot take complaints of a citizen lightly merely because he has chosen not to approach this Court formally. Instances of extreme nuisances caused to neighbourhoods cannot be lost sight of."

The Court then suo motu impleaded the new Managing Director of BEVCO as well as the concerned government department into the matter. 

The Bench had earlier suggested that every liquor shop be converted into a walk-in one, rather than dispensing it with the customers waiting on the footpath or public spaces. This suggestion was accepted by the government and it was informed that proposals in this regard were already being initiated.

Senior Advocate Ranjith Thampan appearing for BEVCO also informed the Court of his intent to file a counter explaining the steps taken by the Corporation to alleviate the situation. He also opined that unless all shops were converted to walk-in, the situation will not get better.

These developments ensued in a contempt petition regarding the non-implementation of the Court's order to provide a dignified way to citizens to purchase liquor from BEVCO outlets. It also addressed the overcrowding in front of these stores. This order was passed four years ago.

Case Title: My Hindustan Paints v. S. Aanathakrishnan IPS