Govt Decision To Open More Liquor Shops/Bars/Parlours Cannot Be Said To Be Unconstitutional: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court has observed that the decision of the State Government in opening more liquor shops, bars/parlours, cannot be said to be violative of Constitution of India or the statutory provisions.The bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Shaji P. Chaly observed thus while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation filed by members of the Kerala Prohibition Council, a movement, striving to thwart the menace of alcoholism in the people of Kerala. They sought a direction to regulate the sale of liquor in the State of Kerala, by adopting three ways of bringing down the sale, viz., (i) limiting the number of points of sale of liquor; (ii) limiting the time of sale of liquor and (iii) limiting the quantity of liquor that may be sold to a person per day by adopting electronic means.The bench considered the contentions raised by the petitioners in detail and observed that the action of the respondents, in opening more liquor shops/bars/parlours etc., cannot be said to be characterized as outrageous or in total defiance of the statutory provisions. "Merely because, more number of shops / bars / parlours etc. are opened, it cannot be said that the fundamental rights of the women and children are affected. While considering the scope of interference by Courts in economic matters, public interest cannot be circumscribed only to the rights of women and children. Decision of the Government in opening more liquor shops, bars/parlours, cannot be said to be violative of Constitution of India or the statutory provisions. Decision does not suffer from the vice of irrationality.""The wisdom of policy underlying a Statute is a matter for the Government. If the Statute is reasonably designed to achieve the purposes of the Act and, in the case on hand, where Sections 10, 24 and 29 of the Cochin Abkari Act,1 of 1077 as amended from time-to-time, and the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, enable the Government to deal with disposal of licenses to liquor shops, bars, parlours etc., action of the Government in opening more liquor shops, bars etc., cannot be said to be unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions."The petitioners had also brought to the attention of the court the election manifesto published by the LDF in which they stated that the LDF Government will adopt a policy by which availability and consumption of liquor will be brought down. The bench therefore considered the issue whether the promises made in the election manifesto of any political party can be a ground to enforce the same, by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the bench, referring to a judgment delivered by Delhi High Court, observed that it is not within the domain of the Court to legislate or issue a direction therefor, making the manifesto a legally binding document on the political party issuing the same.The 174 paged judgment refers to various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court on the issue of jurisdiction of court to interfere in the matter of state policies.a) The State under its regulatory power conferred under Article 47 of the Constitution of India, has the power to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants - its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. b) Laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc., and the legislature should be allowed, greater play in the case of legislation dealing with economic matters. c) The courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions unless such policy framed could be faulted on the grounds of malafide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, unfairness, etc. If the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. d) The courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the Statee) It is to be presumed that before a policy is formulated by a State Government, all relevant aspects and the prevailing fact situation, attending circumstances and the public interest are taken into account. Unless a policy decision ex facie conflicts with a constitutional or statutory provision, or is apparently against public interest it cannot be struck down merely on the ground that the decision is not a prudent and wise one. f) It is for the State to decide what economic and social policy it should pursue and what discriminations advance those social and economic policies. In view of the inherent complexity of these fiscal adjustments, courts give a larger discretion to the Legislature in the matter of its preferences of economic and social policies and effectuate the ...

Govt Decision To Open More Liquor Shops/Bars/Parlours Cannot Be Said To Be Unconstitutional: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags