1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MA Nos 489-491/2018,  366-368/2018, 392-394/2018, 395-397/2018, 388- 390/2018, 1543-1545/2017, 1546-1548/2017  

AND  1549-1551/2017    

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   

O R D E R

Dr. D Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1 This batch of  MAs/IAs arises from the judgment  dated 15 December

2016 rendered  by  this  Court  in  State  of  Tamil  Nadu v  K Balu1 and the

subsequent orders dated 31 March 2017 and 11 July 2017.  The last of the

above orders was delivered in  Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v  The

Union Territory of Chandigarh 2.   1 Civil Appeal 12164-12166/2016 2 Special Leave Petition (C) No.10243 of 2017

REPORTABLE

2

2 Though the reliefs which have been sought in the individual  MAs/IAs

may differ, during the course of the hearing there is a broad consensus that for

the purpose of the present proceedings, it would be sufficient if this Court were

to interpret  paragraph 7 of  the order dated 11 July 2017.  Paragraph 7 is

extracted below:

“7.  The  purpose  of  the  directions  contained  in  the  order  dated  15 December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in proximity of  highways properly  understood, which provide connectivity  between cities,  towns  and  villages.  The  order  does  not  prohibit  licensed establishments  within  municipal  areas.  This  clarification  shall  govern other  municipal  areas  as  well.  We have  considered  it  appropriate  to issue  this  clarification  to  set  at  rest  any  ambiguity  and  to  obviate repeated recourse to IAs, before the Court.”

3 Learned counsel submitted that the expression ‘municipal areas’ in the

above paragraph was not intended to exclude areas within the jurisdiction of

local self-governing bodies. Many of them, it is urged, may be developed in a

manner similar to municipalities. Others, may be geographically proximate to

an urban agglomeration. Hence it was urged that an appropriate direction may

be issued to  obviate  uncertainties  in  application,  occasioning the need for

repeated recourse to this Court or, as the case may be, litigation in the High

Courts.

4 The application has been opposed by one of the contesting intervenors

who placed reliance  on the  decisions of  this  Court  in  APSRTC   v  Abdul

Kareem3 and  Cine  Exhibitions  Private  Limited v  Collector,  District

3 (2007) 2 SCC 466

3

Gwalior4. It has been urged that an application for modification or clarification

of a judgment would fall within the realm of a review and hence the present

applications would not be maintainable.

5 Dealing  with  the  above  objection,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  on

behalf  of  the  applicants  submit  that  they  seek  neither  a  review  nor  a

modification of the orders passed by this Court.  The attention of the Court

was drawn to an order dated 13 December 2017 passed by this Court in Writ

Petition (C) Nos 964/2017 and 1050/2017 in the following terms:

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to direct that each of the petitioners shall  submit a representation within three weeks hence, stating that they are entitled to be governed by the principle as applicable to the municipal areas/MIDC developed areas. The  individual  facts  shall  be  mentioned  in  each  representation.  The same  shall  be  considered  by  the  competent  authority  and  decided, keeping in view the judgments of this Court, preferably within four weeks from the  date  of  receipt  of  the  representation.  Needless  to  say,  the representation shall  be decided by ascribing reasons and recording a finding. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they can approach this Court. With  the  aforesaid  directions  and  liberty,  the  writ  petitions  stand disposed of. “

The  submission  is  that  it  will  suffice  if  permission  is  granted  to  the  state

governments  to  determine  whether  the  applicants  and  similarly  placed

individuals are governed by the principle which was laid down by this Court in

relation to municipal areas.

6 In  Cine Exhibitions Private Limited (supra) a bench of  two learned

Judges comprising of Justice KSP Radhakrishnan and Justice Dipak Misra,

(as the learned Chief Justice then was) held thus:

4 (2012) 6 SCC 698

4

“Generally  an  application  for  correction  of  a  typographical  error  or omission of a word, etc. in a judgment or order would lie, but a petition which is intended to review an order or judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in criminal proceedings except on the ground of  an error apparent  on the face of  the record,  could not  be achieved  by  filing  an  application  for  clarification/modification/recall  or rehearing, for which a properly constituted review is the remedy. (Id at page 703-704)”

In  the  present  proceedings  neither  is  the  Court  called  upon  to  review  its

judgment nor to modify its orders. In fact reliance has been placed on the

orders passed by this Court on 11 July 2017 in  Arrive Safe Society(supra)

and subsequently in  Hotel Sonai Beer Bar and Permit Room v  State of

Maharashtra5 and the connected writ petitions referred to earlier.   

7 In the order passed by this Court on 11 July 2017, it was observed that

the purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15 December 2016

is  to  deal  with  the  sale  of  liquor  along  and  in  the  proximity  of  highways

properly  understood,  which provide  connectivity  between cities,  towns and

villages.  Having regard to this  object  it  was noted that  the order  does not

prohibit  licensed establishments within municipal  areas.  Indeed, in order to

ensure that the order is uniformly understood across the country, this Court

clarified that it will govern other municipal areas as well.  In the subsequent

order of this Court dated 13 December 2017, liberty has been granted to the

licence holders to submit a representation to the state government that the

same principle should  apply to the licensed establishments of the petitioners,

as they apply to municipal  areas/MIDC developed areas (in relation to the

5 Special Leave Petition (C) No 19845/2017

5

State of Maharashtra).  

8 Having  regard to  these directions,  we are  of  the view that  the state

governments would not be precluded from determining whether the principle

which has been laid down by this Court in the order dated 11 July 2017 in

Arrive Safe Society (supra) should also apply to areas covered by local self-

governing bodies and statutory development authorities.  We are inclined to

allow the state governments to make this determination since it is a question

of  fact  as  to  whether  an  area  covered  by  a  local  self-governing  body  is

proximate  to  a  municipal  agglomeration  or  is  sufficiently  developed  as  to

warrant the application of the same principle. In deciding as to whether the

principle which has been set down in the order dated 11 July 2017 should be

extended to a local self-governing body (or statutory development authority)

the  state  governments  would  take  recourse  to  all  relevant  circumstances

including the nature and extent of development in the area and the object

underlying  the  direction prohibiting the sale of liquor on national and the state

highways.   The use of the expression ‘municipal areas’ in the order dated 11

July  2017  does  not  prevent  the  state  governments  from  making  that

determination and from taking appropriate decisions consistent with the object

of the orders passed by this Court.  We leave it open to individual   licensees

to  submit their representations   to the    competent   authorities in the state

governments if they are so advised upon which appropriate decisions may be

taken by the state governments.  We have issued this  general  direction to

6

obviate  both  litigation  before  the  High  Courts  and  repeated  recourse  to

applications to this Court.  

9 With the above observations, the MAs/IAs shall stand disposed of.

          .............................................CJI

          [DIPAK MISRA]

                                                                    ……..........................................J

          [AMITAVA ROY]

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

New Delhi; February 23, 2018.