There Would Be Reduced Instances Of Violence If Access To Liquor Is Prohibited Around Areas Of Religious Festivals: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday observed that when the sale of liquor is prohibited for a few days with the object of maintaining peace, preserving public order and for public good, commercial interests takes a back seat, even if it means experiencing a disruption in sales.

A division bench comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was hearing a batch of appeals and writ petitions filed challenging the order of the lower court that refused to stay the orders by two District Collectors that prohibited FL3 licensees and licensed toddy shops from selling liquor for a few days around three different locations where religious festivals were being held.

On addressing the concerns of the appellant about the huge losses they have to incur due to such bans, the court said:

“We quite understand that the licensees have made substantial investments to carry on liquor vending, both foreign liquor and toddy. The disruption of sales for one or two days especially with the object of maintaining peace, for public good and preservation of public order, relegates commercial considerations to the back seat”

The impugned orders relate to ban on sale of liquor around area of 'Kumbhathiruvathira’ festival in Kadakkal Devi Temple in Kollam and around 'Manappullikkavu Vela' and 'Pattambi Nercha' religious festivals in Palakkad. 

It was argued by the FL3 licensee appellants that such a blanket ban would affect them severely as they have invested significant amounts of money to obtain FL3 licenses, and any sudden restrictions even for a single day would greatly harm their financial interests. It was also argued that the licencees being classified hotels, have also made considerable investments in infrastructure and for promoting tourism.

It was also contented by the appellants that under Section 54 of the Kerala Abkari Act (Closing of shop for the sake of public peace) a notice is required to be served and an opportunity of hearing is to be granted to the licencees. The court while disagreeing with this view point, observed that:

“We also notice from S.54 that the notice does not necessarily speak of an opportunity for hearing. The notice in writing is only insofar as notice to the licensee to close down a shop, in which intoxicating liquor or drug is sold, for the purpose of preservation of public peace, which notice is only to enable the licensee to arrange his affairs accordingly. In fact, the licensee of a liquor shop has absolutely no say in the preservation of public peace and a hearing conducted would be futile since they cannot instruct the District Administration as to how the law-and-order situation within their jurisdictional limits is to be maintained peaceful”

It was also the case of the appellants that such a ban in a limited area around the religious festivals does not prevent a person from consuming liquor from outside the prohibited zones and entering the festivals. The court in this regard observed:

“The contention raised by the appellants that any person could still come intoxicated to the festival, does not permit us to digress from the immediate effects of consumption of liquor, especially when it is readily available at the spot and the deleterious consequences on the unsuspecting public, if the intoxicated person or persons turn violent and engage in criminal activities.”

The Senior Government Pleader appearing for the state submitted that the orders were issued due to a genuine concern that people of various backgrounds and religions would converge at the festival grounds and many a times violence breaks out between people which is often fuelled by alcohol or drug consumption and disrupts the festivities. Dismissing the writ petitions and appeals and upholding the liquor ban, the court held that:

“festivities in all the three sites have a profusion of pyrotechnics, musical ensemble, colourful displays on caparisoned elephants, exhibitions, fares and the like, providing sufficient entertainment without being further enthused and infused with the toxicity of liquor. True, there could still be drunkenness and brawls resulting from that; but there would be sufficient mitigation and reduced instances, if proximate access to liquor is prohibited.”

Case Title: Hotel Hillway Park V State of Kerala & Others and connected cases

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 115 

Click here to read/download judgment