GAGAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner namely Gagan Hotel and Restaurant obtained a licence in Form L-4a and L-5-A for running a Beer Bar in the year 1982 which is being renewed from time to time. The petitioner is also having a licence from Municipal Committee to sell eatables like both vegetarian and non-vegetarian and the licence of the petitioner was also renewed by the Excise Department and the Municipal Committee for the year 1994-95. In January, 1995 the State Government decided to declare Mukatsar Town where the petitioner is running his business as a holy city and as such there would be no sale of liquor in the municipal limits of Mukatsar. According to the petitioner, inspite of the decision taken, the liquor vends were auctioned on 15. 3. 1995 and the petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 towards the licence fee for running the Beer Bar and sent his application for renewal of the licence, but the authorities refused to renew the licence on the ground that Mukatsar was declared as a holy city, therefore no sale of liquor is permitted. According to the petitioner, its hotel is situated at a distance of half a kilometer from the Gurudwara Sahib, Darbar Sahib. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to renew his licence as he has already deposited the requisite licence fee.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner has no Fundamental Right to have the licence renewed and that the hotel and restaurant of the petitioner is situated on the Railway Road and no liquor vend can be opened near a religious place as per the Excise Policy and the limits of the holy city were fixed by the Government in accordance with the Cabinet decision and the licence of the petitioner was not renewed for the year 1995-96 keeping in view the Excise Policy of the Government under which Mukatsar city has been declared as a holy city within the boundaries prescribed by the 1937 Notification regarding municipal limits and the hotel of the petitioner falls within the limits of holy city and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has no legal right.

(3.) IT is the common case that the Govt. has taken a policy decision not to grant or renew the licence in holy places. That policy cannot be challenged on the ground of any violation of Fundamental Rights. No citizen has got a right to trade in liquor. In Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer and Ors. , (AIR 1954 S. C. 220), the apex Court held as follows: