Allahabad High Court Denies Renewal Of Future License To Liquor Shop Which Predates School In Its Proximity

Recently, while entertaining a Public Interest Litigation filed by an LKG student, the Allahabad High Court denied renewal of the liquor license to a country liquor shop as it was situated very close to a school, even though the liquor shop predated the school.

“The mere fact that the shop has been used as a liquor shop in a financial year prior to the school came into existence, is not sufficient for invoking the proviso for the purpose of granting licence year after year inasmuch as the licence is issued to the licencee on his fulfilling the eligibility under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002 and not to the shop in question,” held the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar.

Factual Background

The PIL was filed on behalf of an LKG student contending that a country liquor shop was situated within 30m of the premises of the petitioner's school. It was argued that the shop in question would remain open throughout the day and that it was a known meeting spot for anti-social elements.

It was submitted that the father of the petitioner made a complaint on the IGRS portal of the Government, based on which a report was prepared on 20.07.2023. The report admitted that the shop was located about 20-30m from the school, however, it stated that no action would be taken against the same as the existence of the shop predated the school. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred a PIL before the High Court.

Counsel for petitioner contended that the interpretation of the rules by the authorities was wrong and therefore rejection of the petitioner's representation was incorrect. It was their submission that as per the correct interpretation of the rules, if any school were to come into existence subsequent to the establishment of the liquor shop, the shop may not be closed during the said financial year but after the expiry of the license in question, fresh license/renewal could not be granted.

In response, the respondents relied on the proviso to Rule 5(4)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968(Rules of 1968). As per the said proviso, if a liquor shop was situated at a distance of 50m from any place of public worship or school or hospital or residential colony, and if such place of public worship, school, hospital, residential colony were to come into existence post the establishment of such shop or sub-shop, it would not be violative of the Rules of 1968. Based on this, they contended that the petition deserved to be dismissed.

Initially, the prayer of the petitioner included a direction to the respondents to remove the country liquor shop and to not renew their liquor license for the year 2024-25. However, during the course of the hearing, petitioner confined himself to only seeking the relief that the license of the shop may not be issued for the year 2025-26 at the present location.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that the liquor shop predating the existence of the school, it's license being renewed on a yearly basis and the shop being situated within 20-30m of the school, were all established facts.

The Court observed that as per Rule 5(4)(a) of the Rules of 1968 and Rule 8(d)(i) of the Rules of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002 (Rules of 2002), any applicant who applied for the license of a retail country liquor shop would have to furnish an affidavit that he possessed or had an arrangement for taking on rent a suitable premise in that locality for running the shop in accordance to the Rules of 1968.

Therefore, on the expiry of their current license, the applicant would have to comply with the provisions of Section 5(4)(a) of the Rules of 1968 which necessitated a proposed minimum distance of a liqour shop from a place of worship or school or hospital or residential colony, held the Court. It opined that the proviso to the rule would only have application for the year in which the license had already been granted and same would not hold true in perpetuity.

“In view of the above factual and legal position, the plea raised by the respondents seeking to contend that the shop having been licensed once, irrespective of provisions of Rule 5 (4)(a) of the Rules of 1968, with the aid of proviso to Rule 5(4)(a), can be licensed year after year, cannot be sustained.”

Finding the arguments made by the respondents to be untenable, the Court directed that the liquor license of the shop shall not be renewed for the subsequent years.

Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation was partly allowed.

Case Title: Master Atharva Minor v. State of U.P. and 4 others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 335 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order