HOTEL ASSOCIATTION OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 which is the Hotel Association of India and four other petitioners, two of whom are women employees in the hospitality industry have preferred this writ petition which challenges the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which reads as under :-

(2.) The petitioners No. 2 to 4 are Graduates of Hotel Management and those who were completing the course of Hotel Management and looking for a career in the hospitality industry. Respondent No. 1 is Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, respondent No. 2 is the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, respondent No. 3 is the Commissioner Excise, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and respondent No. 4 is District Excise Officer (Hotels), Govt. of NCT of Delhi. While the petitioners had raised other challenges in the writ petition, the petitioners have now confined the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 30 on the ground of unconstitutional restrictions it imposes upon the rights of women to pursue their profession in Hotel Management and other facets of hospitality industry. The petitioners have high-lighted the plea of their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India being violated and seek to draw a vital distinction between the right to trade in liquor which is indisputably not guaranteed as a fundamental right, and the right of the petitioners 2 to 4 guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on their profession. Since the State has admitted that these restrictions are not imposed under Article 19(6), Section 30 is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. This plea has been highlighted by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madras v. V.G. Row reported as SCR 597 @ pg. 607 that considering the reasonableness of laws imposing restrictions on fundamental rights, both the substantive and procedural aspects of the impugned law should be examined from the point of view of reasonableness. The nature of the right said to be infringed, the purpose behind the imposition of restrictions and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied by the said restrictions and the proportionality of the said restriction and the prevailing conditions are all required to be adjudicated.

(3.) The petitioners have in fact urged that the right to trade in liquor has not been banned. Indeed it has been encouraged by the present administration of NCT at Delhi as evident from the recent steps taken by the administration to make liquor available more easily by having longer working hours for liquor shops and ready availability of beer and wine in various general stores. This shows that in fact the administration far from discouraging the trade in liquor has in fact benefited from the liberalized measures including enhanced timings by earning more revenue. It has been high lighted by Mr. Arun Jaitely, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that before a dry day advertisements at public expense indicating the dry day, are inserted in leading newspapers at considerable cost to the exchequer.