DHANI RAM RATTAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under S. 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and Art. 32(2 -A) of the Constitution of India as applied to the State. The petitioner is the proprietor or the Frontier Hotel situate in Rughnath Bazar, Jammu. He applied for a bar license in May 1957, but it was not granted to him. Thereafter, he made a fresh application in December 1957 for the same purpose and it is pending. But Asoka Restaurant which is situate in the neighbourhood of the Frontier Hotel was granted a bar license on 26 -4 -1958 on an application made by it in December 1957. The other establishments called Messrs. Rana Glory and Kwality Restaurant which are also situated in Jammu City had been granted bar licenses previously. The failure to grant a bar license to the petitioner is characterized as discriminatory and violative of Arts 14 and 19 of the Constitution. A writ of madamus is , therefore, prayed for against the State Government and the State Excise and Taxation Commissioner for the issue of a bar license to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for the issue of any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents.

(2.) THE respondents, namely, the State of Jammu and Kashmir and "the Excise and Taxation Commissioner oppose the petition on the ground that it is not tenable, as no legal or constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated. It is pointed out that the Frontier Hotel is only a Batai shop where meals are cooked and exhibited for sale. The premises are unclean and the hotel caters only to the lower strata of society. No decent person ever resorts to it. On the other hand, the Asoka Restaurant is a high class air -conditioned restaurant which caters to upper class society and tourists of status. The petitioners Frontier Hotel has no comparison whatever with either the Ashoka Restaurant or Messrs. Rana Glory or the Kwality Restaurant which are decent establishments catering to the higher strata of society. The grant of a bar license to the petitioner would lead to brawls and ugly scenes on the part of the low class persons to whom it caters. It is further stated that the Excise authorities have suspicions about the petitioners clandestine activities in selling illicit liquor, and that the petitioner is therefore being carefully watched.

(3.) ARTICLE 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India no doubt guarantees that all citizens have the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. But Cl. (6) of the Article permits legislation imposing reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interests of the general public. It cannot be gainsaid that in determining the reasonableness of the restriction one has to consider the nature of the business, trade or occupation. There is a well -marked and well -recognized distinction between an ordinary lawful trade or business which every citizen is entitled to pursue and a trade or business which is of a dangerous character, or which is illegal, immoral or injurious to the health, kwality and welfare of the public. The business of selling intoxicating liquors undoubtedly fells within the latter category. Therefore a law which restricts or even prohibits this trade or business will obviously be saved by Cl. (6) of Art. 19. Furthermore the right to sell intoxicating liquor by wholesale or retail is a privilegei granted by the State in accordance with the will of the legislature and is not a natural right which inheres in a citizen. In Crowley v. Christensen, (1890), 34 Law Ed. 620, Field J. stated that: