THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. & ORS.versusK. BALU & ANR.

                           [2017] 14 S.C.R. 614


A        THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. & ORS.
                                     v.
                            K. BALU & ANR.
                       (I. A. Nos. 1060-1062 of2017)
B                                    m
                  (Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166 of2016)
                           NOVEMBER 13,2017
          [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
                 DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
c
         Liquor: National Highways and State Highways - Drink and
  drive accidents - I.A. seeking clarification of order dated 11 July
  2017 - By order dated II .July 2017, this Court had made
  observation that the purpose of the direction contained in order
  dated 15 December 2016 was to deal with the sale of liquor along
D and in proximity of highways which provide connectivity between
  cities. towns and villages - The order did not prohibit /icenced
  establishments within municipal areas - It further noted that the
  said obsen1ation would govern other municipal areas as well - Held:
  The observation in order dated 11 Ju~y 2017 make it clear that the
E purport of judgment dated 15 December 2016 is to prohibit
  co1111ee1ivi~y between cities. towns and villages - In other words,
  this will 110! operate to prohibit licenced establishments within.
  municipal areas - The clarification to the e.ffect that it "shall govern
  other municipal areas as well" is c/earzv intended to set the matter
  at rest in relation to other parts of the country so .as to obviate the
F need for repeated applications before this court - The expression
   "other municipal areas" will apply to all municipal areas wherever
  situated - Jnterlocyt01:v applications accordingly disposed of
           State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Ba/11 Civil Appeal No. 12164-
           12166 of 2016 decided by Supreme Court on
G          15.12.2016; Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v. The
           Union Territ01y of Chandigarh SLP (C) No. 10243 of
           2017 decided by Supreme Court on ll.7.2017 -
           referred to.
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A. Nos. I 060-1062 of
H 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166 of2016.
                                  614
     THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. & ORS. v.                              615
                    K. BALU & ANR.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2013 in Writ Petition A
No, 23773 of2012 and Order dated 28.03.2013 in M. P. Nos. 9 and 10
of2013 in W. P. No. 23773 of2012 of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras.
      Uday Gupta, Hiren Dasan, Chand Qureshi, Advs. for the
Appellants.       -                                         .B
     Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, A.. K. Panda, Mukul
Rohatgi, Subramonium Prasad. Dr. Manish Singh vi, Sr. Advs., Ms. Binu
Tamta, Rajcsh Ranjan, P. K. Mullick, Ms. Snidha Mehra, M. Yogesh
Kanna, Mrs. Sujatha Bagadhi, Sailja Nanda Mishra, Advs. for the
~00~.                                                                            c
       The following Order of the Court was passed:
                                O_RDER
      I. The present application is at the behest of the State of Tamil
Nadu for clarification ofan Order dated 11 July 2017 passed in Special           D
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10243 of2017. ·
      2 On 15 December 2016, this Court delivered a judgment in State
of Tamil Nadu v K Balu 1, by which the following directions were issued:
        (i)     All states and union territories shall forthwith cease and
                desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along       E
              · national and state highways;
        (ii) The prohibition contained in (i) above shall extend to and
             include stretches of such highways which fall within the
             limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority;
        (iii) The existi.ng licences which have already been renewed F
              prior to the date of this order shall continue until the term of
              the licence expires but no later than 1April2017;
        (iv) All signages and advertisements of the availability ofliquor
             shall be prohibited and existing ones removed forthwith both
             on national and state highways;                                     G
        (v) No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a
            natio nal or state highway; (ii) directly accessible from a
            national or state highway and(iii) situated within a distance
'(Civil Appeal No. 12164-12166 of2016)                                           H
616           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 14 S.C.R.


A                of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state
                 highway or of a service lane along the highway.
            (vi) All States and Union territories are mandated to. strictly
                 enforce the above directions. .;Lhe
                                                 '·'
                                                     Chief Secretaries and
                 Directors General of Police shall within one month chalk
 B               out a plan for enforcement in consultation with the state
                 revenue and home departments.
                 Responsibility shall be assigned inter alia to District
                 Collectors and Superintendents of Police and other ·
                 competent authorities. Compliance shall be strictly
 C               monitored by calling for fortnightly reports on action taken.
                 These directions issue under Article 142 of the Constitution.
                 25 We dispose of the appeals and transfer petitions in the
                 above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
           3. Subsequently, on 31March2017, this Court interalia directed
 D that:
            "We accordingly direct that the following paragraph shall be
            inserted, after direction (v) in paragraph 24 of the operative
            directions of this Court in the judgment dated 15 December 2016
            namely:                             ·
 E
            "In the case of areas comprised in local bodies with a population
            of 20,000 people or less, the distance of 500 metres shall stand
            reduced to 220 metres".
           4. The earlier directions contained in the judgment dated 15
 F  December 2016 have since been explained further by this Court on 11
    July 2017 inArrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v The Union Territory ·
    of Chandigarh 2 • In that case, by a notification dated .16 March 2017,
    the Chandigarh administration had modified an earlier notification dated"
    21 October 2005. By the earlier notification, major arterial roads
    (described as VI, V2 and V3 roads) were notified as state highways.
 G By the subsequent notification, all Vl, V2 and V3 roads were declared
  . as major district roads except for national highway No. 21 and Madhya
    Marg from Panchkula border to Mullanpur border. The validity the    of
    notification dated 16 March 2017 was upheld by the High Court of Punjab
    and Haryana.
 H    '·SLP(C)No.10243of2017
         THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. & ORS. v.                           617
                        K. BALU & ANR.

          5. While affirming the judgment of the High Court, this Court in        A
   its order dated 11 July 2017 held thus:
            0
              The judgment of this Court dated 15 December 2016 prohibits
             the grant oflicenccs for the sale ofliquor along and in proximity
             of the National arid State Highways including those falling within
             the limits of municipal corporations, cities and towns or local B
             authorities. Directions (i) and(ii) extracted earlier did not prevent
             the Administration from re-classifying inter-sectoral roads within.
           · the city from state highways to major district roads. The exercise
             carried out by <:;:handigarh Administration does not breach the
             directions issued by this Court. It is neither in violation of the
             tenns of the order nor o( the purpose and intendment behind C
             those directions."                           '"
   Having upheld the validity of the notification issued by the Chandigarh
   adJllinistration, this Court also made the following observations in
 ; paragraph 7 of the judgment:
            "7. The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15 D
            December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in
            proximity of highways properly understood, which provide
            connectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order docs
            not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This
            clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well.. We have E
            considered it appropriate to issue this .clarification to set at rest
            any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs, before
            the Court'~.     ·
   The above observations make it clear that the purport of the judgment
   dated 15 December 2016 is to prohibit the sale of liquor along and in F
   proximity of highways which provide connectivity between cities, towns ·
   and villages. In other words, this will not operate _,te prohibit licenced
   establishments within municipal areas. The clarjfieation to the effect
   that it "shall govern other municipal areas as well" is clearly intended to
   set the matter at rest in relation to other parts of the country so as to
• obviate the need for repeated applications before this Court. 'The G
.. expression "other municipal areas" will apply to all municipal areas, ·
   wherever situated.
           6. The Interlocutory Applications are accordingly disposed of.

 . Devika Gujral                                               IAs disposed of.   _H