Vinay Kumar Walia vs The Commissioner, Deptt Of Excise ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1219 Del

5 &6
$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 3383/2012 & CM APPL. 18314/2014
       VINAY KUMAR WALIA                       ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.

                                versus

       THE COMMISSIONER ,
       DEPTT OF EXCISE AND ORS                     ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
                              Delhi.
                              Ms. Juhi Chawla, Advocate for
                              Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate
                              for DDA.
                              Ms. Mrinal Beri, Advocate for
                              Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for
                              DSIIDC.
                              Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for MCD.
                              Ms. Rana Parween Siddiqui, Advocate
                              for respondent No.5.
                              Mr. Rakesh Saini, Advocate for
                              applicant in CM No.18314/2014
                     And

+      W.P.(C) 3963/2012
       ANUPAM APARTMENTS
       RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSO (LOT-I)           ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.

                                versus

       THE COMMISSIONER ,
       DEPTT OF EXCISE AND ORS                   ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
                              Delhi.

W.P.(C) 3383/2012 & 3963/2012                             Page 1 of 4
                                      Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Advocate with
                                     Mr. Mrinmoi Chatterjee, Advocate for
                                     DDA.
                                     Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate with
                                     Mr. Harpreet Singh and Mr. Pranjal
                                     Saran, Advocates for respondent No.3.

       %                         Date of Decision: 16th February, 2016.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                                 JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking closure of liquor shops in Convenient Shopping Centres of DDA.

2. The admitted position is that the issues raised in the present writ petitions are squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Residents Welfare Association (Regd) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., LPA 166/2015 decided on 08th May, 2015. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has held as under:-

"29. We, from the nomenclature understand, a CSC as a small shopping centre in the midst of the houses within the colony or a block thereof with shops therein selling items of daily need of households of perishable items and which shops ordinarily an outsider from the colony would not visit and a LSC as situated outside the residential colony, to cater to the needs of the households of consumables which may be required say once a month and also having offices, service centres like travel agents, car rentals, clinics, laboratories, banks, restaurants etc. and which will be frequented by residents of several surrounding localities and may be by others as well. In such case it could have been said that as per our culture, there ought not to be a

liquor vend in a CSC. However we do not find the MPD-2021, though having the nomenclature of CSC and LSC to have made any such distinction. The draftsman of the Master Plan, after drawing the five tier system of commercial areas comprising inter alia of LSC and CSC, has provided retail shopping without any restriction on the size of the retail shop or on the commodities to be retailed therefrom, in both LSC and CSC and the only restrictions are on commercial offices of size more than 125 sq. mtrs., Clinical Laboratory, Polyclinic, Guesthouse, Coaching Centre, which activities though can exists in a LSC but not in a CSC. When there is no restriction on the commodities / items which can be retailed from a shop in a CSC, we fail to see on what basis DDA can say that retail of liquor is not permitted from therein. Not only so, restaurants have been permitted in both, LSC and CSC. We have wondered that if a public place as a restaurant is also permitted in the CSC, with again no restriction on alcohol being served therein, then how can it be said that a liquor vend is not permitted.

30. In these circumstances, though the concerns expressed by the petitioner/appellant cannot be said to be totally unfounded but cannot be addressed on the basis of MPD-2021, pegging on which the Court has been approached. The same is the position under the Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Though care has been taken therein to prohibit a liquor shop in close proximity to an educational institution, religious place etc. but there is no such limitation placed with respect to proximity to residences.

xxx xxx xxx

32. We thus, in the said state of affairs are unable to find any illegality in the grant of license for liquor vends at the subject sites. All that we can do is to direct that in accordance with the minutes of the 11th meeting of the Advisory Group of the DDA held on 23rd August, 2013, a suitable framework be formulated so as to curb the nuisance associated with consumption of liquor around CSCs in residential neighbourhood. The same be done preferably within a period of four months of today."

3. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present writ petitions and applications are disposed of in terms of the said Division Bench judgment.

MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 16, 2016 js