D.K. JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a practicing advocate, has invoked the PIL jurisdiction of this Court seeking, among others, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement Section 37-A of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (for short the 'Act'), as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, in its letter and spirit; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to assess the loss being caused to human resources, and the public health, due to consumption of liquor in the State of Uttarakhand; and to further direct that necessary steps be taken to make-up the loss being caused by consumption of liquor to consumers, and their family members, in the State of Uttarakhand.

(2.) While a passionate plea is made by Sri B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, of the urgent need for judicial interference to curb the extensive damage caused to families in the hilly areas of the State of Uttarakhand, and in some cases complete destruction of the social fabric of entire villages, on account of the sole bread winner frittering away his entire earnings on consumption of liquor, and it is submitted that failure to implement prohibition in the State, in compliance with Section 37-A of the Act, would result in the complete collapse of the rural economy of the State, this Court may not be justified in travelling into unchartered waters of the moral obligations of the State, to impose prohibition, and must confine its examination to the question whether the State Government has failed to discharge its statutory / legal obligations, if any, of imposing prohibition, for it is only with a view to compel the State Government, to comply with a statutory obligation, can a mandamus be issued.

(3.) Sri B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that, since Section 37-A of the Act was introduced with the laudable object of protecting the welfare of the people of the State, and in furtherance of the Directive Principles of State policy, the State Government is obliged to comply with the said provision; and the abject failure of the State Government to do so, necessitates intervention by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel would refer extensively to the contents of the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondents, to submit that their understanding of Section 37-A of the Act, to mean that the said Section is applicable only to those areas where there is a complete ban on liquor, and as not to apply in the entire State, is completely flawed; reference to the 2002 Excise Policy by the respondents, in support of their submission that steps are being taken for gradual extension of prohibition, is wholly untenable; the power conferred on the Government under Section 40, and the Commissioner under Section 41 of the Act, to frame a policy is only to regulate manufacture and sale of liquor in the State, and has no relation to Section 37-A in Part VI-A of the Act; and the minutes of the meeting dated 02.08.2018, convened by the Additional Secretary, Excise Department, records the concerned officials having themselves acknowledged therein that, in terms of Abkari Manual Part-II, the State should take steps to impose prohibition in compliance with the mandate of Article 47 of the Constitution of India.