GRAM PANCHAYAT MEHTABGARH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Gram panchayat Mehtabgarh, tehsil and district Patiala. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 auctioned a country-liquor vend in the petitioner's village for the first time in the year 1968-69. Before sanctioning the liquor vend in this village, no prior consultation with the Gram Panchayat was made. There is a Government School in this village and the Gram Panchayat received a large number of complaints about the rowdy behaviour of some of the persons who used to purchase liquor from his vend. There are about 40 houses in this village and no police is posted there. Most of time of the Panchayat is consumed in deciding such complaints. With a view to improving the atmosphere of the village, the Gram Panchayat held a meeting on February 12, 1973, and unanimously passed a resolution requesting the authorities to shift the liquor vend from village Mehtabgarh. A copy of this resolution was also sent to the office of the excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, the same day. Respondent No. 2, however, took no decision on this resolution.

(2.) SECTION 26 of the Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter called the Act) provides that a Gram Panchayat may, by a vote of at least two thirds majority of Panches, direct that intoxicating liquor may not be sold at any licensed shop within the local area of the Gram Panchayat. The proviso to this section lays down that if the Excise and taxation Commissioner is of the opinion for reasons to be recorded in writing that illicit distillation or smuggling of alcohol was being carried on or connived at in such local area within the last two years, then the resolution passed by the Gram panchayat shall not be binding upon him. Section 26 (3) of the Act lays down that such a resolution shall be binding on the Collector notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and the Rules framed there under.

(3.) A reading of these provisions shows that a Gram Panchayat has been given wide powers of enforcing prohibition within the area of its jurisdiction, provided, of course, it acts honestly in this behalf. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner can ignore such a resolution only if he records an opinion that illicit distillation or smuggling of alcohol has been carried on or connived at within the two years preceding the date of the passing of the resolution by the Panchayat. It is not the case of the respondents that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of this case and came to the conclusion that the excise vend at this village should continue to function in spite of the resolution passed by the Panchayat. The resolution passed by the Panchayat takes effect from the first day of the April of the year next after such a resolution. In the instant case, the resolution was passed on February 12, 1973, and so it became effective with effect from April 1, 1973. It is a matter of regret that in spite of these clear provisions of law, the authorities concerned treated the resolution of the Panchayat with scant respect and proceeded to auction the liquor vend. Such an action ill-becomes responsible officers of a Government which is expected to enforce prohibition as envisaged in Article 47 of the Constitution appearing in the chapter relating to the Directive Principles of State Policy.