STATE OF U P Vs. MANOJ KUMAR DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these special leave petitions involve a common question as to the interpretation of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968 (hereinafter for short the "U.P. Excise Rules"). Since these petitions involve a common question, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. However, for convenient disposal of these petitions, the facts of SLP(C) No. 7756/2006 are taken into consideration.

(2.) This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.4.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench whereby the Division Bench has taken the view that the word "close proximity" used in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the U.P. Excise Rules shall be meant to be 100 meters or 300 ft. (approx.). The brief facts leading to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court are that a public interest petition was filed before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court making a grievance that liquor shops were opened in purely residential areas in breach of the provisions of U.P. Excise Rules.

(3.) The said Excise Rules have been made in exercise of the powers under Clauses (c) and (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1910) read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904). The said Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Excise Rules reads as under: