Can't Direct Govt To Enforce Strict Prohibition On Liquor, Directive Principles Not Enforceable: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Observing that Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus for enforcing the directive principles of State policy, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently closed a petition seeking closure of liquor shops and establishments in the UT, besides seeking rehabilitation of those engaged in this business.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta was hearing a plea seeking recall of the order passed by the division bench of the court on October, 27, 2015, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which was filed by Karwani Islami Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1998, seeking direction to the erstwhile State of J&K, to take necessary steps for prohibition of sale and consumption of liquor in the erstwhile State of J&K.

Earlier in 2015, the division bench while disposing of the PIL had held that it was not permissible under law to issue writ of mandamus to enforce strict prohibition in the then State of J&K. The bench had then further observed that the Article 47 of the Constitution of India, which was strongly relied upon by the petitioner in the PIL was held not enforceable through the Court of law, as being enshrined as a directive principles of the State policy.

Dealing with the matter in hand the bench said that the trade in liquor in the UT of J&K is regulated by the J&K Excise Act and the rules framed therein and hence the government is empowered to frame Excise policy to regulate such trade within four corners of Excise Act and rules framed therein.

Highlighting the fact that several excise policies have been issued after 2015, the bench said that as a matter of fact, respondents are coming up with new Excise policy every year.

"That being the position, this petition, by the efflux of time is rendered infructuous. The petitioner, however, if feels aggrieved by the Excise policy in vogue or Excise policy, which is issued for the next financial year, shall be well within its right to make his grievance by setting up specific case against any of the terms and conditions of the policy," the court said.

The court further noted that while disposing of the PIL in 2015, the court had also given liberty to the petitioner or any person, who is affected or interested in the implementation of the restriction/regulations, to approach the Court for appropriate direction and it seems that taking cue from aforesaid direction, the petitioner has filed this petition.

"Be that as it may, we reiterate that this Court cannot, by issuing writ of mandamus, enforce the directive principles of State policy and direct the respondents to enforce strict prohibition in the Union Territory of J&K," the bench said.

Observing that the instant petition, which has otherwise outlived its purpose and is rendered infructuous, the court said that in view of the same , no directions as prayed for in the petition are called for and accordingly closed the plea.

Case Title: Manzoor Ahmad Dar Vs State of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

Counsel For Respondent: Mr Mohsin Qadri Sr AAG

Click Here To Read/Download Order