The Allahabad High Court granted a kindergartener’s public interest litigation (PIL) request to prevent a liquor store near his school from renewing its license.
The Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968 (Rules of 1968) Rule 5 (4) (a) stipulates that a liquor shop must be 50 meters away from any place of public worship, school, hospital or residential colony. It explicitly stated that if a school was established after the opening of a liquor store, the terms of this rule would not apply.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar remarked, “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. Any other interpretation to the said proviso, as projected by counsel for the respondents, would render the provisions of Rule 5 (4) (a) nugatory.”
On behalf of the petitioner, Advocate Ashutosh Sharma argued, and on behalf of the defendants, SC Ramanand Pandey stood.
The elimination of a rural liquor store that was near to his school in Kanpur was the goal of a PIL filed by a minor L.K.G. student via his guardian. The kid further asked the court to refuse to award any new or renewed licenses for the years 2024–2025.
The PIL emphasized that despite being a notorious gathering spot for “anti-social elements,” the liquor store was open all day and was less than 30 meters from the school.
After the minor’s father filed a complaint on the IGRS site, a report was generated stating that the alcohol store was 20-30 meters away from the school, but no action was done since the liquor business was older than the school. According to a different account, the school opened in 2019 and the business has been operating for over 30 years.
“Every applicant who applies for licence of a retail country liquor shop, is required to furnish an affidavit that he possesses or has an arrangement for taking on rent a suitable premise in that locality for running the shop in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 1968 as amended from time to time,” the Court said after reading Rule 5 (4) (a) of the Rules of 1968 and Rule 8 (d) (i) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002.
The court further observed, “The proviso to Rule 5 (4) (a) of the Rules of 1968 would have application only for the financial year in which licence has already been granted and the place of worship or school or hospital or residential colony comes into existence inasmuch as for seeking licence in the next financial year, the applicant has to comply with the provisions of Rule 5 (4) (a) of the Rules of 1968”.
As a result, the Court imposed a prohibition on the respondents from issuing or renewing the license for the aforementioned business subsequent to the current license’s expiration in fiscal year 2025-26.
Consequently, the writ petition was partially accepted by the High Court.
Case Title: Master Atharva Minor v. State of UP & Ors.
Counsels for the Petitioner: Advocates Ashutosh Sharma and Nitesh Kumar Jauhari
Counsels for the Respondents: SC Ramanand Pandey and Seema Agarwal; Advocate Sanjay Kr. Srivastava