In a recent development, the Allahabad High Court addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an LKG student and denied the renewal of a liquor license for a country liquor shop located in close proximity to the petitioner’s school, despite the shop predating the school’s establishment.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar, emphasized that the mere historical use of the shop as a liquor establishment before the school was established does not justify granting the license repeatedly under the prevailing rules. The court held that licenses are issued based on the licensee meeting eligibility criteria under Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules, not solely due to the shop’s prior use.
Background Details:
The PIL was filed on behalf of the LKG student, arguing that the country liquor shop was situated within 30 meters of the school and attracted anti-social elements due to remaining open throughout the day.
It was revealed that the petitioner’s father had filed a complaint on the IGRS portal, resulting in a report acknowledging the shop’s proximity to the school but opting against action due to the shop’s pre-existing status. Dissatisfied, the petitioner pursued a PIL before the High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the authorities misinterpreted the rules, leading to the wrongful rejection of the petitioner’s representation. They argued that the rules dictate closure of such shops after their current license expires, not during the same financial year as the school’s establishment.
In response, the respondents cited the proviso to Rule 5(4)(a) of the 1968 Rules, suggesting that shops meeting certain criteria, despite proximity to newly established public locations like schools, are not in violation of the rules.
High Court’s Ruling:
Initially seeking removal of the liquor shop and refusal of its 2024-25 license renewal, the petitioner narrowed the plea during proceedings to solely barring the shop’s license for 2025-26 at its current location.
The court acknowledged the shop’s pre-existing status and proximity to the school but emphasized the requirements outlined in Rule 5(4)(a) of the 1968 Rules and Rule 8(d)(i) of the 2002 Rules regarding the minimum distance of liquor shops from public sites.
Consequently, the court dismissed the respondents’ argument that the shop’s prior licensing justified its continual renewal, asserting that such renewal should not persist beyond the initial license period under the mentioned rules.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing that the liquor shop’s license not be renewed for subsequent years. The PIL was partially allowed based on these findings.
