Page 1

1

                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I A Nos  4-6,  7-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-24, 25-27, 28-30, 31-33, 34-36, 37-39, 40-42  

IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS 12164-12166   OF 2016

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY SEC.  AND ORS           ..Appellants  

VERSUS

K. BALU AND ANR.                ..Respondents

WITH I A NOS 5, 6 AND 7 IN C A NO  12169 OF 2016

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO 12170 OF 2016

AND OTHER UNREGISTERED I.A.s ON BOARD

O R D E R

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

1. On  15  December,  2016,  this  Court  delivered  judgment  in  a

batch of Civil Appeals originating  from the State of Tamil Nadu

and the  States  of  Punjab and Haryana.  The  decision of  this

Court is reported as ‘State of Tamil Nadu represented by its

Secretary,  Home,  Prohibition  and  Excise  Department  Vs.

REPORTAB LE

Page 2

2

K.Balu1 .   The  issue  which  the  Court  addressed  was  the

presence of liquor vends on national and state highways across

the  country.  Official  figures  of  road  accidents,  with  their

attendant  fatalities and injuries provided the backdrop for  the

intervention of this Court.  This Court adverted to the consistent

policy of the Union Government to curb drunken driving and, as

an incident of  the policy, to remove liquor vends on national

highways. The judgment of this Court concludes that there is no

justification  to  allow  liquor  vends  on  state  highways  (while

prohibiting  them on  national  highways)  having  due  regard  to

drunken  driving  being  one  of  the  significant  causes  of  road

accidents  in  India.Hence,  by  the  judgment  of  this  Court,  the

following directions have been issued  for stopping the grant of

licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways

and over a distance of 500 metres from the outer edge of the

highway or a service lane alongside. 1 April 2017 is fixed as the

date for phasing out existing licences.  The directions are set

out below:

(i) All  states  and  union  territories  shall  forthwith  cease  and  desist  from

granting licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways;

1

(2017) 2 SCC 281

Page 3

3

(ii) The prohibition contained in (i) above shall extend to and include stretches

of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city,

town or local authority; (iii) The existing licences which have already been renewed prior to the date of

this order shall continue until the term of the licence expires but no later

than 1 April 2017; (iv) All  signages  and  advertisements  of  the  availability  of  liquor  shall  be

prohibited and existing ones removed forthwith both on national and state

highways; (v) No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or state

highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii)

situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or

state highway or of a service lane along the highway.  (vi) All States and Union territories are mandated to strictly enforce the above

directions.  The Chief  Secretaries  and Directors  General  of  Police  shall

within one month chalk out a plan for enforcement in consultation with the

state  revenue and home departments.  Responsibility  shall  be assigned

inter alia  to  District  Collectors and Superintendents of  Police and other

competent authorities. Compliance shall be strictly monitored by calling for

fortnightly reports on action taken.  (vii) These directions issue under Article 142 of the Constitution. “

2. This clutch of applications, nearly 68 of them, have been filed

basically for    (i)  extension of  time for  compliance, in certain

cases;  or (ii) modification or, as the case may be,  recalling the

judgment delivered by this Court.

3. We may at the outset indicate that having regard to the nature

and  importance  of  the  issue  which  finds  reflection  in  the

judgment delivered by this Court and the significant element of

public  interest that is involved in dealing with road accidents

caused due to drunken driving on the highways of the nation,

Page 4

4

we have  heard  arguments  extensively  on  29  and  30  March,

2017 so that the matter can be addressed before the deadline of

1 April 2017.  Some States and  private parties who were not

before the Court in the course of the original proceedings urged

that their submissions in regard to the directions issued by this

Court  should be taken into account.  Hence,  we were of  the

view that in the interest of fairness it  would be appropriate to

enable  a  dispassionate  consideration  of  their  perspectives  in

order to determine whether any modification is required and if

so, the nature of the modification that may be warranted in the

final  judgment  of  this  Court.   We have,  therefore,  not  been

trammelled by the technicality  of  whether  these ‘Interlocutory

Applications’ would be maintainable in a proceeding which has

been disposed of. Having regard to the importance of the issues

which have been addressed in the judgment and order, we were

of the considered view that this Court should have the benefit of

the assistance rendered by States who have moved this Court

and of parties with diverse perspectives so as to facilitate an

outcome which is both just and is arrived at after a fair  hearing.

We have accordingly proceeded to follow that line of action and

have been assisted over the previous two dates of hearing by

Page 5

5

learned  counsel  who  have  brought  to  bear  on  their  task  a

considerable degree of industry on the subject.   

4. For convenience of reference, we may indicate that eight States

(besides the Union Territory of  Pondicherry)  have moved this

Court in the present proceedings.  The States which are before

the Court are :

1. Andhra Pradesh 2. Himachal Pradesh 3. Karnataka 4. Kerala 5. Sikkim 6. Telangana 7. Meghalaya 8. Tamil Nadu

5. We may indicate that  the following States have not filed any

applications :

1. Arunachal Pradesh 2. Assam 3. Bihar 4. Chhattisgarh 5. Goa 6. Gujarat 7. Haryana 8. Madhya Pradesh 9.   Maharashtra 10.  Manipur 11.  Mizoram 12.  Nagaland 13. Odisha 14. Punjab 15. Rajasthan 16. Tripura 17. Uttar Pradesh 18.  West Bengal

Page 6

6

6. During the course of the proceedings, an affidavit has been filed

by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Madhya Pradesh

stating  that  the  judgment  rendered  by  this  Court  has  been

accepted by the State Government, following a resolution by the

Council of Ministers on 16 January 2017. The Chief Secretary

informs the Court that :

“In compliance of the order of 15 December, 2016 passed by the

Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  of  India,  New  Delhi,  in  Civil  Appeal

No.12164-12166/2016, the Council of Ministers of Madhya Pradesh,

in its meeting at 16th January has ensured to comply in the Excise

Policy  Year  2017-18  that  there  shall  be  no  Liquor  Shop  situated

within  a  distance  of  500  Metre  from  the  service  lane  of  the

National/State  Highways.   No  Liquor  Shop  shall  be  visible  or

accessible directly from the National/State Highways.  Any signage or

Board or advertisement depicting the availability of the liquor in any

form shall be prohibited.

The Government of Madhya Pradesh, Commercial Tax Department,  

has issued order of aforesaid intent regarding to the location of  

Liquor Shops at National/State Highways in point No.4 of its order  

No.F.B.-01-01/2017/2/Five, dated 17th January 2017. (Copy of the  

order is attached)

For  general  information  of  the  said  provisions  to  the  Public

instructions  of  aforesaid  intent  have  been  issued  in  respect  to

disposal of retail sale shops of country/foreign liquor, Arrangements

Page 7

7

year  2017-18,  which  have  been  published  in  Madhya  Pradesh

Gazette (Extra Ordinary) No.27 dated 18 January 2017”.

7. On behalf of the Delhi Tourism Development Corporation it has

been stated that out of the 547 vends for liquor, 14 are in breach

of the 500 metre norm.  A Committee was constituted for the

shifting of these liquor vends, and the process has begun.  An

extension of six months has been sought.  

8. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh informed the Court that

the  State  Government  has  accepted  the  judgment  and  is

accordingly withdrawing the Interlocutory Application filed by it.

I.A.D.No. 11840  is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

9. The State of  Telangana has similarly  informed the Court  that

under  its  excise  policy,  the  excise  year  is  to  end  on  30

September.  The limited prayer before the Court is an extension

of time for compliance so as to facilitate the expiry of the current

licences at the end of the excise year on 30 September 2017.   

10. Besides the States listed earlier, the Court has also been seized

of Interlocutory Applications instituted by individual licencees of

liquor or, as the case may be, of associations representing the

interests of the trade.

Page 8

8

11. The principle line of submission addressed before this Court by

the learned Attorney General for India (appearing on behalf of

the State of Tamil Nadu) is that the judgment rendered by this

Court  has  transgressed  the  limitations  on  the  constitutional

power  conferred  by  Article  142.   The  basis  on  which  this

submission has been urged is that the excise rules which are

framed  by  different  States  under  their  enabling  legislative

powers prescribe distances for the location of liquor shops with

reference to the highways.  For instance, it has been stated that

the  distance  prescribed  in  certain  state  excise  rules  is  220

metres.  Similarly an exemption is available for municipal and

local areas through which a segment of a highway passes. It

has been urged that the prescription of distance under the state

excise rules is interfered with by the directions issued by this

Court  which  prohibit  shops  for  the  sale  of  liquor  within  a

distance of 500 metres from the outer edge of  national or state

highways or of a service lane along the highway. The learned

Attorney General  submits that   topographic and geographical

conditions of each State are distinct, which is why  excise rules

across  the  country  prescribe  varying  distances  from  the

highways for location of liquor shops.  Hence it has been urged

that  it  is  not  appropriate  for  this  Court  to  prescribe  a  fixed

Page 9

9

distance  of  500  metres.  The  Attorney  General  urge  that  the

Committee  appointed  by  this  Court  (chaired  by  Justice

S.Radhakrishnan, a former Judge of this Court) recommended a

distance only of 100 metres.  The error, in the submission of the

Attorney  General,  lies  in  comparing  national  and  state

highways.  Moreover, it is urged that even if the prohibition were

to  apply  to  both  national  and  state  highways,  an  exemption

ought to be provided for the location of liquor shops in municipal

areas through which the state highways traverse.  Alternately, it

was urged that a smaller prohibition in terms of distance would

be  appropriate  in  relation  to   state  highways.  The  Attorney

General has confined his submission to the state highways only.

12. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel has urged that the

judgment rendered by this Court is unconstitutional and is in the

nature of judicial policy making.   

13. The Union of India is represented in these proceedings (as in

the proceedings which led to the judgment dated 15 December

2016) by Shri  Panda. Shri  Panda has unequivocally asserted

that the Union government stands by the judgment rendered by

this Court on 15 December 2016. Shi  Panda has submitted that

the  judgment  is  supported  by  the  consistent  policy  and

advisories  of  the  Union  government  to  the  states  to  curb

Page 10

10

drunken driving and to prohibit the sale of liquor along national

highways.   

14. In dealing with these submissions, we must at the outset notice

that  this  Court  while  exercising  its  jurisdiction  has  neither

formulated policy  nor (as we shall indicate)  has it assumed a

legislative function.  The  basis and foundation of the judgment

delivered on 15 December 2016 is (i) the policy of the Union

Government,  formulated  by  the  Union  Ministry  of  Road

Transport  and  Highways  (MoRTH);  (ii)  the  decision  of  the

National Road Safety Council (NRSC), which is an apex body

for  road  safety  established  under  Section  215  of  the  Motor

Vehicles  Act,  1988;  (iii)  advisories  issued  by  the  Union

Government to the states over a period of one decade; and (iv)

the Parliamentary mandate of zero tolerance for driving under

the influence of  alcohol,  evident  in  Section 185 of  the Motor

Vehicles  Act,  1988.   The  judgment  of  this  Court  extensively

reproduced the statistics  on road accidents  from official  data

released  by  MoRTH  in  its  Transport  Research  Wing,  the

decisions of NRSC and the advisories issued over the previous

decade by the Union Government. The judgment of this Court

has inter alia adverted to the decision taken in a meeting held

thirteen years ago by NRSC to the  effect that licences for liquor

Page 11

11

shops should not be given along the national highways. Besides

this, the Court has also relied upon advisories issued by MoRTH

to  the  States  and  Union  Territories  on  26  October  2007,  1

December 2011, 18 March 2013 and 21 May 2014.  Section 185

of the Motor Vehicles Act is indicative of a Parliamentary  intent

to  penalise  driving  under  the  influence  of  alcohol.  The

conclusions which have been drawn by this Court in paragraph

9 of its judgment, which we extract below are hence based, on

the considered policy of the Union Government :

“9. The  material  which  has  been  placed  on  record  indicates that :

(i) India has a high rate of road accidents and fatal road accidents – one of the advisories states that it is the highest in the world with an accident occurring every four minutes;

(ii) There is a high incidence of road accidents due to driving under the influence of alcohol;

(iii) The existence of liquor  vends on national  highways is in the considered view of the National Road Safety Council  and Mo

RTH – expert authorities with domain knowledge – a cause for road accidents on national highways;

(iv) Advisories  have  been  issued  to  the  State  Governments  and Union  Territories  to  close  down  liquor  vends  on  national highways and to ensure that no fresh licences are issued in the future…”

Having said  this  the Court  observed that  there is  no logical  basis  to

distinguish  between   national  and  state  highways.  The  menace  of

drunken driving and the resultant fatalities or injuries are not confined

only to national highways.  Hence, the judgment of this Court is neither

an  exercise  of  the  court  having  formulated  a  policy  or  of  having

embarked upon a legislative exercise.

Page 12

12

15. The submission of the Attorney General (representing the State of

Tamil Nadu) and of other learned senior counsel who adopted the same

line of argument, which is based on the state excise rules  is lacking in

substance.   The state  excise rules  contain  enabling  provisions.  They

provide for a discretion for the grant of liquor licences. No individual has

a vested right to obtain a licence. There is no fundamental right to carry

on business in liquor since as a matter of constitutional doctrine, Article

19(1)(g) does not extend to trade in liquor which is consistently regarded

as  res  extra  commercium.  Where  an  excise  rule  which  has  been

formulated by a  state  government  provides for  the maintenance of  a

specified distance from an institution or amenity, what this postulates is

that no licence can be granted at all by the State Government within that

distance.  The state has a discretion on whether a licence should be

granted under its enabling powers. No individual can assert a right to the

grant of a licence : trading in liquor is a privilege conferred by the state.

The directions which have been issued by this Court do not breach any

norm in the nature of a prohibition nor do they operate to lift a prohibition

imposed by law.   The effect and purport of the directions is that in the

interest of public safety and public health, the distance from the outer

edge of national or state highways or a service lane along the highway is

to  be  maintained  of  500  metres.   This  does  not  amount  to  the

Page 13

13

assumption of a legislative function by the Court.  In fact the requirement

of maintaining a distance from the highway (which even according to the

submission of counsel is adopted in a large number of states) ensures

that  the prohibition on the grant of  licences  along the highway is not

defeated by the presence of outlets in  close  proximity to the highway.

The maintenance of an adequate buffer is a necessary incident of the

principle,  which is to prevent ready availability of  liquor to users of  a

highway.  In any event, no private individual can be heard to make a

grievance of the prescription of 500 metres which is manifestly in public

interest.     

16. In the teeth of  the statistics on road accidents which are made

available  to  the  court  by  MoRTH,  we  are  not  inclined  to  accept  the

submission of Shri K.K.Venugopal, learned senior counsel, that drunken

driving is not the most important cause of road accidents (over-speeding

according to learned counsel being the main cause). Over-speeding can

also occur due to the driver being under influence of alcohol. Learned

counsel urged that even in a ‘dry’ state like Gujarat, accidents occur due

to drunken driving.  Apart from the questionable authenticity of a private

web-site on the internet, we have considered it more appropriate to place

reliance on official data of MoRTH. It is also necessary to emphasise that

there  is  a  tendency  to  under-report  drunken  driving  as  a  cause  of

Page 14

14

accidents with a view not to prejudice the claims of victims or their heirs

to compensation. In fact even the data relied upon by Shri Venugopal

states that in 2011, the highest prevalence of accidents due to drunken

driving was in  Uttar  Pradesh,  Madhya Pradesh,  Maharashtra,  Andhra

Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. We therefore do not find any substance in the

submission.

17.  The  next  aspect  of  the  submissions  urged  before  the  Court  by

learned senior  counsel  is  that  state  highways traverse  across  towns,

cities  and  villages.  It  has  been  urged  that  the  application  of  the

prohibitory  distance  of  500  metres  would  cause  serious  hardship

particularly  if  more  than  one  state  highway  is  found  to  intersect  a

municipal area.  The example of the city of Coimbatore was cited before

this  Court  to  urge  that  where  more  than  one  highway  intersects  a

municipal area the obligation to observe a distance of 500 metres would

operate to    cause serious prejudice. The learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the associations representing the liquor trade or, as the case

may  be,  individual  licencees  urged  that  a  graduated  solution  which

exempts those segments of the state highways which traverse through

villages,  cities  and  towns  should  be  adopted.   Shri  Kapil  Sibal,  Shri

Harish  Salve,  Dr  A M  Singhvi,  Shri  Jayant  Bhushan,  learned  senior

counsel, as well as other learned counsel suggested the same approach.

Page 15

15

As and by way of  an example,  Shri  Devdatt  Kamat,  learned counsel

appearing for the State of Karnataka informed the Court that under the

state excise rules, an exemption is provided from the application of a

prescribed distance of 220 metres in the case of a municipality with a

population of less than 20,000 people.

18.. To further buttress the submission, it was urged that the direction

which has been issued by the Court will result in a loss of revenue to the

States.   The  direction,  it  was  submitted,  would  result  in  individual

hardship,  in  cases  where  the  shifting  of  a  liquor  shop  may  not  be

possible due to geographical location or topography.  Alternately, it was

submitted  that  the  shifting  of  a  liquor  shop  may  encounter  other

difficulties such as the presence of residential areas or the requirement

of  maintaining  a  stipulated  distance  from   educational  and  religious

institutions.

19.  The  judgment  delivered  by  this  Court  on  15  December  2016

indicates a rationale and basis for not allowing the exemption for those

segments of national and state highways which fall within the limits of

municipal or local authorities.  This Court noted that such an exclusion

would  defeat  the  policy  since  the  availability  of  liquor  along  such

stretches of  national  or  state highways would merely allow drivers to

replenish the stock of alcohol, resulting in a situation which the policy

Page 16

16

seeks to avoid in the first place the directions which have been issued by

this  Court  restrain  the  grant  of  licences  for  the  sale  of  liquor  along

national  and  state  highways  and  within  a  stipulated  distance  of  500

metres of the outer edge of a highway or of a service lane along the

state highway. Sale of liquor along the highways is not exhaustive of the

broad canvas of areas in which  licences which may be granted by a

State. Apart from  areas along the national and state highways (or the

stipulated distance of 500 metres), licences can be granted over other

areas of the States and Union Territories subject to compliance with the

other requirements of the excise rules. No state has placed any data

before the Court to indicate that no licence can be granted at all  by it in

an  area  other  than  along  a  state  highway  or  the  buffer  distance

prescribed.   It  would defy reason to assume that  in  municipal  areas,

availability of liquor is only along the segment of a highway.  It may be

attractive to the vendor to sell liquor along the highway but that is not the

touchstone of  a norm which protects public health and seeks to curb

fatalities on the highways of the nation.  The states are free to realise

revenues  from liquor  licences  in  the  overwhelmingly  large  swathe  of

territories that lie outside the national and state highways and the buffer

distance of 500 metres.

Page 17

17

20.  The pernicious nature of the sale of liquor along the national and

state highways cannot be ignored. Drunken driving is a potent source of

fatalities and injuries in road accidents.  The Constitution preserves and

protects the right  to  life  as an over-arching constitutional  value.   The

preservation of  public  health  and of  public  safety is  an instrument  of

enhancing the right to life as a constitutionally protected value.  Where a

balance has to be drawn between protection of public health and safety

and the need to protect road users from the menace of drunken driving

(on  the  one  hand)  and  the  trade  in  liquor  (on  the  other  hand)  the

interests of the latter must be subordinate to the former.

21.  Another  submission  which  has  been  urged  on  behalf  of  the

applicants is that the expert committee appointed by this Court (chaired

by  Justice  S  Radhakrishnan,  a  former  Judge  of  this  Court)  has

recommended a distance of 100 metres with reference to  highways. In

view of this recommendation it has been submitted that this Court ought

not to have fixed the minimum distance at 500 metres.  We find no merit

in the submission.  The recommendation of the Committee cannot be

placed  on  a  higher  footing  than  what  it  purports  to  be  namely,  a

recommendation.  The opinion of the Expert Committee was duly cited

before this Court during the course of the proceedings leading upto the

judgment dated 15 December 2016.  We are of the view that a distance

Page 18

18

of 100 metres with reference to the highway is not adequate to ensure

that  users of the highway do not seek access to the sale of liquor in

close proximity to the highway.  A distance of merely 100 metres will not

serve the purpose which is sought to be achieved. Hence, we have not

accepted that part of the recommendation of the Committee but have

considered it appropriate to enhance the minimum distance.

22.  After considering the submissions which have been urged before

this Court, we are of the view that there are three areas where the rigors

of the directions which have been  issued by this Court may require to be

suitably modulated without affecting the basic principle underlying the

judgment.  .   The  first  is  in  relation  to   limits  of  local  bodies  with  a

population of less than 20,000 people.  In such areas, it has been urged

before this  Court  that  a state highway is  the main thoroughfare area

along which the township has developed in small clusters of 20,000 or

less. Hence, the requirement of maintaining  a distance of 500 metres

from the  outer  edge  of  the  highway  or  service  lane  may result  in  a

situation  where  the  entire  local  area  may  fall  within  the  prohibited

distance.   We  find  some  substance  in  the  submission.  We  must

emphatically clarify that  even in such areas falling under local  bodies

with a population of less than 20,000, no licence for the sale of liquor

should be issued along either a national or  state highway or a  service

Page 19

19

lane along the  highway.  Similarly, the sale of liquor should be from a

point which is neither visible from a national or  state highway or which is

directly accessible from a national or  state highway.  However, in such a

situation, the prohibited distance should in our view be restricted to 220

metres from the outer edge of the national  or   state highway or of  a

service lane along the highway.  We accordingly direct that the following

paragraph shall  be inserted, after direction (v) in paragraph 24 of the

operative directions of this Court in the judgment dated 15 December

2016 namely :   

“In the case of  areas comprised in local  bodies  with a population of

20,000 people or less, the distance of 500 metres shall stand reduced to

220 metres”.   

23. The second area upon which we propose to issue a relaxation is in

respect of direction (iii) contained in paragraph 24 of the judgment of this

Court. This Court has directed that existing licences which have been

renewed prior to the date of the order shall continue only until the term of

the licence expires but not later than 1 April 2017. This was on the basis

that the excise year ends on 31 March with the end of the financial year.

This Court has been apprised during the course of hearing,  that different

states have  different  periods  of  operation  for  their  excise years.  Shri

P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel,  urged that the implementation of the

Page 20

20

directions should be carried out so as to inflict ‘minimum pain’ on the

trade, which is not illegal.  For instance, our attention has been drawn to

the fact that the excise year in Telangana commences on 1 October and

ends on 30 September of  the following year.  In the State of  Andhra

Pradesh,  the  excise year  is  stated  to  end  on 30  June.  Licencees to

whom licences  have  been  allotted  prior  to  the  date  of  the  judgment

would have made their investments.  The cut-off date of 1 April 2017 was

intended  to  protect  such  individuals.   However,  some modification  is

warranted due to the prevalence of varying excise years.  In our view,

the ends of justice would be met by issuing the following direction in

continuation of direction (iii) in paragraph 24 of the judgment of this Court

:  “In the case of  those licences for  the sale of  liquor which have been

renewed  prior  to  15  December  2016  and  the  excise  year  of  the

concerned state is to end on a date falling on or after 1 April 2017, the

existing licence shall continue until the term of the licence expires but in

any event not later than 30 September 2017”.  

In other words, no licence shall either be granted or renewed or shall

remain in operation in violation of the direction of this Court beyond 30

September 2017.  

24. In the State of Tamil Nadu, liquor vends are operated by TASMAC

which is a state owned entity. In the judgment of this Court, time until 1

Page 21

21

April, 2017 was granted on the request of the State. Hence, we decline

to grant any further extension to the State of Tamil Nadu.

25.   The third area is in relation to the States of Sikkim (argued by Shri

A.K.Ganguly, learned senior counsel) and Meghalaya which have moved

this Court for a suitable modification of the judgment having regard to the

nature of the hilly terrain. In relation to the State of Sikkim, this Court has

been apprised on behalf of the State Government that nearly 82 per cent

of the area of the state is forested and 92 per cent of the shops will have

to be closed as a result of the directions of this Court.   Similarly, the

State  of  Meghalaya  has  placed  before  this  Court  peculiar  conditions

prevailing in the State as a result of the hilly terrain.  We are of the view

that insofar as the States of Meghalaya and Sikkim are concerned, it

would suffice if the two states are exempted only from the application of

the 500 metre distance requirement provided in paragraph 24(v)(iii) of

the judgment of this Court on 15 December 2016.

26..  Insofar as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, we are of

the view that the exemption which has been granted earlier in respect of

areas  falling  under  local  bodies  with  a  population  of  20,000  will

sufficiently  protect  the  interests  of  the  State.  No  further  relaxation  is

granted over and above what has already been stated in that regard.

27.  Finally we  clarify that we are not inclined to issue a direction in

terms as sought by Shri Aryama Sundaram, learned senior counsel and

Page 22

22

other counsel  that the judgment of this Court should be clarified so as to

apply  only  to  shops involving sale  of  liquor.  Since the object  of  the

direction is to prevent drunken driving, no such relaxation can be made

which  would  defeat  the  object  which  is  sought  to  be  achieved.

Consequently, the directions issued by this Court cannot be read down,

as suggested. The directions shall be read, as they stand.

28.  We accordingly dispose of this batch of Interlocutory applications in

terms of the above.  The Civil Appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of

the judgment dated 15 December 2016 and the order passed today.

...........................................CJI           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

                                                   ...........................................J           [Dr  D Y  CHANDRACHUD]

                                                   ...........................................J           [L NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi MARCH 31  2017

Page 23

23

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) D.NO. 6688 OF 2017

IN  

CIVIL APPEAL  NOS. 12164-12166  OF 2016

STATE OF U.P. … Petitioner THR.PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EXCISE

versus

K. BALU & ORS.               … Respondents

O  R  D  E  R

Permission to file Review Petiton is granted. Objection raised

by the office is waived.

In view of the order passed by this Court on 31 March 2017

in I.A.Nos.4 to 6 etc.etc. in C.A.Nos.12164-12166 of 2016 and also the

judgment  of  this  Court  dated  15  December  2016  in  Civil  Appeal

Nos.12164-12166 of 2016 etc, this Review Petition is also disposed of.   

.....…………..……………….…....…CJI. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

………………...…………………….…J. (Dr D Y Chandrachud)

………………...…………………….…J. New Delhi; (L. Nageswara Rao) March  31, 2017.

Page 24

24

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D.NO. 9250 OF 2017

IN  

CIVIL APPEAL  NOS. 12164-12166  OF 2016

V M SUDHEERAN … Petitioner

versus

PINARAYI VIJAYAN AND ORS.     … Respondents

O  R  D  E  R

In view of the order passed by this Court on 31 March 2017

in I.A.Nos.4 to 6 etc.etc. in C.A.Nos.12164-12166 of 2016 and also the

judgment  of  this  Court  dated  15  December  2016  in  Civil  Appeal

Nos.12164-12166 of 2016 etc, this Contempt Petition is also disposed of.

.....…………..……………….…....…CJI. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

………………...…………………….…J. (Dr D Y Chandrachud)

………………...…………………….…J. New Delhi; (L. Nageswara Rao) March  31, 2017.

Page 25

25

ITEM NO.32(For Orders)      COURT NO.1               SECTION XII

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I.A.Nos.4-6  &  7-9,  10-12,  13-15,  16-18,  19-21,  22-24,  25-27,  28-30, 31-33, 34-36, 37-39, 40-42 in Civil Appeal No(s).12164-12166/2016

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC.&ORS           Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

K. BALU & ANR.                                     Respondent(s)

WITH

I.A.Nos.5, 6 and 7 In C.A. No.12169/2016 C.A. No.12170/2016 [HEARD  BY  HON'BLE  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE,  HON'BLE  DR.  D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND HON'BLE L.NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]

Date : 31/03/2017 These applications/appeal were called on for     orders today.

For Appearing Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv.(AAG)  Parties Mr. B. Balaji, Adv.

Mr. Muthuvel Palani, Adv.

Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.

Mr.R.Venkata Ramani, Sr.Adv. Mr.V. G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr.Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.

Page 26

26

Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv.

Dr.Rajeev Dhawan, Sr.Adv. Mr.N.K.Perumal, Adv. Mr.H.D.Kumaravel, Adv. Ms.V.S.Lakshmi, Adv. Mr.A.Venayagan Balan, Adv.

Dr.Rajeev Dhawan, Sr.Adv. Mr.D.Das, Adv. Mr.R.B.Phookan, Adv. Ms.Neha T.Phookan, Adv. Mr.Ishan Das, Adv. Mr.Shailesh Madiyal, Adv.

Mr.D.K.Thakur, AAG Mr.Shariq Ahmed, Adv. Mr.Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Mr.M. Ram Babu, Adv. Mr.Ashok Bannidinni, Adv. Mr.P.V.Saravana Raja, Adv. Mr.Meka Venkata Rama Krishna, Adv. Mr.Vamshi Rao, Adv. Mr. Rayala Subba Rao, Adv.

Mr.Subodh Kr.Pathak, Adv. Mr.Abhijeet Chatterjee, Adv. Ms.Shashi Ranjan, Adv. Mr.Adil Alvi, Adv. Ms.Devahuti Tamuli, Adv. Ms. Barnati Basak, Adv.

Mr.Avijit Patnaik, Adv. Mr.Srisatya Mohanty, Adv

Page 27

27

Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Adv. Ms. Sindhu T.P., Adv Mr. Bineesh K, Adv. Mr. Rajendra Beniwal, Adv. Mr. Arushi Singh, Adv.

Mr.Raghavendra S.Srivatsa, Adv. Mr.Venkita Subramoniam, Adv.

        Mr.Rahat Bansal, Adv.

Mr.G.Prakash, Adv. Mr.Jishnu ML, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. Manu Srinath, Adv.   

Mr.Ram Sankar, Adv. Mr.P.Jegan, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Surya Narayana Patro, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. for Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, AOR

Mr. Amol N. Suryawanshi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kenjale, Adv.

Mr.Abhijit Chattopadhyay, Adv. Mr.Sandeep Lamsa, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Lal Das, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.

Ms.Nandini Sen, Adv.  Mr.Suman Sengupta, Adv

Mr.Venkateshwar Rao Anumulu, Adv.  Mr.Prabhakar Parnam, Adv.

Page 28

28

Mr.Arun Singh, Adv.  Mr.R.V.Kameshwaran, Adv.

Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Adv.  Mr.A.K.Panda, Sr.Adv.  Ms.Binu Tamta, Adv.  Mr.S.S.Rawat, Adv.  Mr.G.S.Makker, Adv.  Ms. Somya Rathore, Adv.  Mr. Ansh Singh Luthra, Adv.

Mr.Dhruv Dewan, Adv.  Mr.Vikshit Arora, Adv.  Ms.Reena Choudhary, Adv.  Mr.Koshubh Devmani, Adv.  Ms.Ananya Ghosh, Adv.

Mr.Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.  Mr.Abhinav Agrawal, Adv.  Ms. Sadapuria Mukherjee, Adv.  Mr. Munjal Bhatt, Adv.  

 Mr.Ashutosh Dubey, Adv.  Mr.Krishnendu Sarkar, Adv.  Mr.Abhishek Chauhan, Adv.  Mr.V.S.Rawat, Adv.  Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Adv.   Mr. Sushil Pandey, Adv.

Mr.A.Mariarputham, AG  Ms.Aruna Mathur, Adv.  Mr.Avneesh Arputham, Adv.

 Ms.Anuradha Arputham, Adv.  Mr.Amit Arora, Adv.

Mr.P.V.Yogeshwaran, Adv.  Mr.Ashish Kr.Upadhyay, Adv.

Page 29

29

Mr.Suresh Ch.Tripathy, Adv.

Mr.Prasenjit Keswani, Adv.  Mr.Satyajit Saha, Adv.  for Mrs. V.D. Khanna, AOR

Mr.Aashish Gupta, Adv.  Mr.Dushyant Manocha, Adv.  Mr.Ishan Gaur, Adv. Mr.Aditya Mukherjee, Adv. Ms.Taruna Dhingra, Adv. Mr.S.S.Shroff, Adv.

Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, Adv. Mr.Parikshit P.Angadi, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv.

Mr.Jayesh K.Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms.Manju Das, Adv. Mr.Aviral Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Sasmita Tripathy, Adv.  

Mr.Aarohi Bhalla, Adv. Mr.Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Adv.

Mr.S.K.Das, Adv. Mr.R.Nedumaran, Adv.

Ms.Suvira Lal, Adv.  Mr.M.C.Dhingra, Adv.

Ms.G.N.Rampal, Adv. Mr.Pijush Kant Roy, Adv.

Page 30

30

Mr.Ravi Kamal Gupta, Adv Mr.Nikunj Dayal, Adv. Mr. Pramod Dayal, Adv. Ms. Payal Dayal, Adv.

Mr.Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Adv. Mr.M.Paikaray, Adv.

Mr.Sumanth Nookala, Adv. Mr.Goli Ramakrishna, Adv.

Mr.Vinay Navare, Adv. Ms.Abha R.Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv. Mr.Suvidutt M.S., Adv. Mr.Sai Deepak Iyer, Adv. Mr.Arnold Harvey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Nagar, Adv.

Mr.Manoj V.George, Adv. Mr.B.D.Das, Adv. Ms.Shilpa Liza George, Adv. Mr.Amit Masih, Adv. Mr.Tarun Kant Samantray, Adv.

Mr.Roy Abraham, Adv. Ms.Seema Jain, Adv.  Ms.Rajni Ohri Lal, Adv.  for Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR

                                    Mr.Pankaj Pandey, Adv.   Dr. Gajendra Prasad Singh, Adv.                     

                            Mr. S. Thananjayan, Adv.  Mr. Jothimanian, Adv.

Page 31

31

                                     Mr. V. K. Biju, Adv.

Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr.V.Balaji, Adv.  Mr.T.Ashok Kumar, Adv  Mr.Prashant Kenjale, Adv.  Mr.Atul Sharma, Adv.  Ms.Sripradha K., Adv  Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Yatish Mohan, Adv.  Ms.Reena Yadav, Adv.  Mr.Kedar Nath Tripathy, Adv.  Mr.M.A.Aleem Majid, Adv.

Mr.Sameer Parekh, Adv.  Mr.Sumit Goel, Adv.  Ms.Nandita Bajpai, Adv.

Dr. Rajeev B. Masodkar, Adv.  Mr. Azeem Kalebudde, Adv.  Mr. Ravi Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.  Mr. Sudhir Chand Srivastava, Adv.

Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv.

Mr. Sameer Dawar, Adv.  Mr. Narender Singh Yadav, Adv.

Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Adv.  Mr. Yogesh Jagia, Adv.  Mr. Amit Sood, Adv.

Page 32

32

Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, Adv.  Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Adv.  Mr. Aman Guta, AOR

Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.  Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.

Ms. Suvira Lal, Adv. for Mr. M.C. Dhingra, AOR

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv.

Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud pronounced the order of the Court comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice, His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

All  interlocutory  applications  and  the  civil  appeal  stand disposed of, in terms of the reportable signed order.

Review Petition and Contempt Petition also stand disposed of, in terms of two separate signed orders.

 (Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Assistant Registrar               AR-cum-PS

[One  reportable  signed  order  and  two  signed  orders  in  Review  and Contempt Petitions are placed on the file]