Delhi High Court
Arz Unique Enterprises Limited vs Union Of India on 6 March, 2014
Author: Manmohan
#31
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1519/2014
ARZ UNIQUE ENTERPRISES LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Anjana Gosain with Mr. Pradeep
Desodya, Advocates
% Date of Decision : 06th March, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
CM APPL. 3163/2014 in W.P.(C) 1519/2014
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1519/2014
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent to amend their guidelines for classifying and categorizing hotels
as five star hotels.
2. Mr. S.N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
mandatory requirements of having a multi-cuisine restaurant and a bar in a
five star hotel is violative of fundamental right of a citizen enshrined under
Article 19 of the Constitution.
3. Mr. Gupta states that classification of a hotel as five star as
prescribed under the impugned guidelines is also violative of Article 47 of
Constitution which reads as under:-
"47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the
standard of living and to improve public health:- The State
shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of its people and the improvement of public
health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State
shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption
except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of
drugs which are injurious to health."
4. He points out that a new five star hotel is shortly going to open in
Oman wherein no alcohol would be served.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the
view that even without a bar or a multi-cuisine restaurant, petitioner is at
liberty to start a hotel.
6. Further, the State is not coercing the petitioner to start a five star
hotel. Petitioner is at liberty to promote vegetarianism and prohibition. It is
not mandatory for the petitioner to apply for a five star rating.
Consequently, this Court is of the view that petitioner's argument with
regard to Article 19 of the Constitution is contrary to facts and untenable in
law.
7. As far as Article 47 of the Constitution is concerned, this Court is of
the view that it is only directory and not mandatory.
8. This Court also takes judicial notice that a five star hotel rating is an
internationally accepted concept. When an international traveller is
informed that a hotel has five star status, he/she presumes a certain amount
of facilities and luxuries like a bar and a multi-cuisine restaurant are
available.
9. Though petitioner has given an instance of five star hotel abroad
being run without a bar, yet this Court is of the view that the illustration is
not apt as India is a secular country, which does not enforce complete
prohibition.
10. This Court is also of the view that the concept of five star as devised
by the State cannot be varied according to the petitioner's understanding. It
is settled law that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope
of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular
public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor
are our courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner
merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been
fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. [See: Balco Employees'
Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 333].
Accordingly, present petition being bereft of merits is dismissed but with no
order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 06, 2014
rn
