Introduction:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the State’s directive to relocate a liquor shop, ruling that such a directive does not infringe upon the shop owner’s rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The case, M/S Himalaya Traders (A Partnership Firm) Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, challenged the validity of the State’s order directing the relocation of a licensed liquor shop from its current location to a new site approximately 6 kilometers away. The petitioner contended that frequent relocations imposed financial hardships and questioned the validity of the State’s reasons for the moves.

Background:

M/S Himalaya Traders, a partnership firm, was initially licensed to operate a composite liquor shop at Habibganj Pathak. Following a directive, the shop was temporarily relocated to a site near the Think Gas Petrol Pump. Subsequently, the shop was ordered to move to Karol Road, about 6 kilometers away. The petitioner challenged the order dated May 16, 2024, issued by the Collector (Excise) of Bhopal, arguing that the frequent relocations were both unjustified and financially burdensome.

Arguments from Both Sides:

For the Petitioner (M/S Himalaya Traders): The petitioner, represented by its counsel, argued that the repeated relocations imposed excessive financial costs and operational difficulties. They questioned the validity of the reasons provided by the State for the relocations and claimed that the decisions failed to account for the economic impact on their business. The petitioner contended that the directive was unreasonable and that the State’s actions constituted a violation of their right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

For the Respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh): The respondents, including the State’s Excise Department, defended the directive by citing their authority to regulate the location of liquor shops under state excise policies. They highlighted multiple complaints regarding the shop’s initial location near the Think Gas Petrol Pump, emphasizing that the relocation was necessary to maintain public order and safety. The respondents argued that the trade of liquor is a privilege regulated by the State, not a fundamental right, and that their actions were consistent with their responsibility to uphold public health and safety.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice G. S. Ahluwalia, delivering the judgment, affirmed the State’s authority to regulate the location of liquor shops. The court referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgments in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1995) and State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2004). These rulings established that the rights under Article 19(1) are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions. The court noted that the trade in liquor is considered a privilege rather than a fundamental right and that the State has the power to impose regulations and restrictions in the interest of public health and safety.

Justice Ahluwalia emphasized that the license to operate a liquor shop is not a business right but a privilege granted by the State. The court highlighted that Article 47 of the Constitution directs the State to work towards prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs that are harmful to health. The court concluded that the State’s directive to relocate the petitioner’s shop was reasonable and aligned with the State’s regulatory powers.

The judgment stated, “It is clear that license to run a liquor shop is not a business but it is a privilege conferred by the State. Since the order under challenge is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India as well as counsel for petitioner also could not point out the violation of any statutory provision, this Court cannot consider the correctness of the reasons assigned by respondents for shifting of the shop.”

The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any statutory violation or discriminatory action by the State. The court thus upheld the relocation directive and dismissed the petition, affirming the State’s regulatory authority over liquor trade.

Conclusion:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling underscores the State’s regulatory powers over the location of liquor shops, affirming that such directives do not infringe upon constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(g). The judgment highlights that the trade in liquor is a privilege regulated by the State and not a fundamental right. This decision reinforces the principle that the State can impose reasonable restrictions to maintain public orderand health.