HOTEL BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these Writ Petitions, wherever Rule is not issued, issue Rule nisi.

(2.) IN these petitions, the petitioners, questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned Notification dated 1st April 2003 in no. FD. 20 PES 2002, published in the Karnataka Gazettee No. 347 dated 1st April 2003 vide Annexure A, have presented these petitions. Further, they have sought for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, prohibiting the respondents 2 to 4 from demanding minimum lifting of liquor by the petitioners.

(3.) THE petitioners herein are the holders of Clause 2 and Clause 9 licences. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the Notification dated 1st April 2003 in respect of sale of liquor in a particular area or city or a town or location, depending upon the probable demand of the consumers. Therefore, it is their case that it is neither possible nor feasible to specify the minimum quantity of liquor to be sold by the retailers including the Bar and restaurants since the sale of liquor is not in the hands of licence holders. That apart, the sale of liquor also depends upon the locality in which, the licenced retail liquor business is situated and therefore, there cannot be any yardstick or a general estimation as to the sale of liquor in a particular, area. It is the further case of the petitioners that people hailing from elite section of the society consume more time and less liquor, whereas, the people from lower strata consume more liquor in a lesser time. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the intent of the legislation while framing the Rules, governing the sale of liquor was that no such compulsion can be imposed for sale of liquor and so also the mandate of Article 47 of the Constitution of India, which makes it a fundamental obligation on the state to bring about prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks and therefore, no such compulsion finds a place anywhere either in the Act or the rules framed thereunder. He submitted that moreover, the preamble of the Karnataka Prohibition Act, 1961 states that 'whereas it is expedient to amend and consolidate the law relating to the promotion and enforcement of and carrying out the policy of prohibition of consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and drugs and to provide for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing and that the said Act is in force and not been repealed so far. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not at all been taken into consideration by the first respondent while issuing the impugned Notification.