License To Run Liquor Shop Is Not Business But “Privilege” Conferred By State: MP HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Order To Shift Liquor Shop
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the license to run a liquor shop is not a business but it is a privilege conferred by the State and an order directing the shifting of such a shop is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “Thus, it is clear that license to run a liquor shop is not a business but it is a privilege conferred by the State. Since the order under challenge is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India as well as counsel for petitioner also could not point out the violation of any statutory provision, this Court is of considered opinion that this Court cannot consider the correctness of the reasons assigned by respondents for shifting of the shop…Furthermore, it appears that multiple complaints were received with regard to location of the shop to a place which is situated in front of Think Gas Petrol Pump…Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.”
Advocate Anvesh Shrivastava appeared for the Petitioner whereas Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly appeared for the Respondents.
A Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by Collector (Excise), District Bhopal by which the petitioner, who is a licensee, was directed to shift his composite liquor shop to Karol Road.
The Petitioner submitted that he was granted a license to run a composite liquor shop at Habibganj Pathtak. Thereafter, he was directed to temporarily shift the shop in front of Think Gas Petrol Pump and now the Petitioner was directed to shift his shop for the third time to Karol Road which is approximately 6 km. away from the present place of location/ shop of the petitioner.
The Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others v. State of Karnataka and others (1995) which held, “The State cannot prohibit trade or business in medicinal and toilet preparations containing liquor or alcohol. The State can, however, under Article 19(6) place reasonable restrictions on the right to trade or business in the same in the interests of general public…Likewise, the State cannot prohibit trade or business in industrial alcohol which is not used as a beverage but used legitimately for industrial purposes. The State, however, can place reasonable restrictions on the said trade or business in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.”
The reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the State of Punjab and another v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and Anr (2004) which observed that trade in liquor is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege of the State and the State parts with this privilege for revenue consideration.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: M/s Himalayas Traders v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Anvesh Shrivastava
Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly
