SATYA PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The framers of the Constitution considered intoxicating and drugs as injurious to health and impeding the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of the people and improvement of the public health and, therefore, they incorporated Article 47 in the Directive Principles requiring the State to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks which obviously include liquor, except for medicinal purposes. However, in the last 50 years most of the governments have made no effort to prohibit the manufacture, sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks. Rather, it has registered manifold increase in the last two decades and the governments consider it to be their proud privilege to announce that they have earned more revenue by sale of liquor for funding health and education programmes meant for poor.

(2.) The multi-fold increase in the manufacture and sale of intoxicants has also led to tremendous increase in the litigation in the matters relating to grant of licence etc. Hundreds of cases are filed every year in different Courts challenging the actions of the State to grant licenses/privilege for manufacture and sale of liquor on the ground of fundamental and constitutional rights even though in the last five decades the Courts have repeatedly rejected the plea that the citizens have the fundamental right to carry on trade or business in intoxicants and as on date, it must be treated as a settled proposition of law that the right guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business does not extend to practising a profession or carrying on an occupation, trade or business which is inherently vicious and pernicious and it does not entitle the citizen to carry on trade or business in articles or goods which are obnoxious and injurious to health, safety and welfare of general public. The Courts have also held that potable liquor as a beverage is an intoxicating and depressant drink which is widely recognised as dangerous and injurious to health and, therefore, it is an article which is res extra commercium being inherently harmful. It must, therefore, be treated as a settled proposition of law that a citizen does not have the fundamental right to do trade or business in liquor and the State can completely prohibit the same - Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. The Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer and Ors., 1954 S.C.R. 873; Har Shankar and Ors. v. The Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors., 1975(3) S.C.R. 254; Lathanlal etc. v. State of Orissa and Ors., 1977(1) S.C.R. 811; Sat Pal and Company v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1979(3) S.C.R. 6515; Southern Petroleum and Chemicals, Trichur and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 1981(4) S.C.C. 391; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors., 1986(4) S.C.C. 566; Doongaji & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1947 and M/s Khoday Distilleries Ltd. etc. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., J.T. 1994(6) S.C. 588.

(3.) Notwithstanding, the aforementioned clear enunciation of law, the grant of licenses whether by auction or otherwise are challenged in the Courts on the ground of violation of fundamental, constitutional and legal rights. The present one is also a case which falls in that category. The petitioners-Satya Pal son of Shri Jagan Nath and M/s Satya Pal & Company have challenged the award of contract of liquor vends of group Nos. 113 to 117 of, Excise Circle, Ludhiana to respondent No. 4 for a licence fee of Rs. 32.70 crores by alleging that the authorities of the Excise & Taxation Department have manipulated the award of liquor vends to respondent No. 4 at the instance of the Chief Minister of Punjab because the main partner of respondent No. 4 is the brother of Shri Jagdish Singh Garcha (MLA of Akali Dal), who is very close to the Chief Minister. The petitioners have pleaded that the decision of the official respondents to accept the bid given on behalf of respondent No. 4 ignoring the higher bid of Rs. 33 crores given by them should be declared illegal because the official of the department did not act in accordance with the directions given by this Court in C.W.P. No. 4781 of 1995 against the clubbing of different groups.