The Punjab and Haryana High Court yesterday issued notice to the Government of Punjab, in a petition filed by the NGO ‘Arrive Safe Society’ challenging the Punjab Excise (Amendment) Bill 2017..Two months after the Supreme Court’s ban on sale of liquor 500 metres from National and State Highways, the Punjab Assembly has passed the Punjab Excise (Amendment Bill) 2017 amending the Punjab Excise Act, 1914..The Bill has been passed to enable hotels, restaurants and other notified places near highways in the state to supply alcohol circumventing the Supreme Court order..A Vacation Bench of Justice Anita Chaudhry and Justice Harminder Singh Madaan has now sought the response of the Punjab Government as to why the amendment made by it should not be stayed until a final decision..The Petition, filed by the President of Arrive Safe Society, Harman Singh Sidhu, has alleged that the Punjab Government has brought these amendments just to dodge the Supreme Court orders. The petition further alleges that the amendment cleverly tries to distinguish between ‘sale of liquor’ and ‘supply of liquor’..Clause 18A of the Bill defines sale of liquor as “transfer of consideration by a liquor vend for consumption by a purchaser at a place other than its premises” and clause 19A defines supply of liquor as “provision of liquor for consideration at clubs, restaurants, hotels and other places on the basis of licenses issued on the condition that it shall be consumed within their premises”..In this regard, the petitioner Society in its petition said:.“As per the impugned amendment the sale is different from supply and is meant to be consumed within the premises. However, Supreme Court was aware of these tantrums regarding consumption in premises and consumption off premises and thus they passed the direction to cease granting of licenses for sale of liquor.”.The amendment uses a very vague term of “notified place” and permits the sale of liquor at such notified places, hotels, clubs and restaurants..The term “notified places” would definitely be misused to mean a ‘tavern’ as a notified place and the judgment of the Supreme Court as also the intent with which it was passed in National Interest would be diluted..Alleging that the amendment is in clear disregard to the directions of the Supreme Court, the petitioner society said:.“If the impugned amendment is allowed to operate then liquor vends camouflaged as a restaurant/ hotel or club could be found everywhere along the highways without any consideration of public health, public morality, public peace, and would resultantly lead to traffic chaos, health hazard and frequent road accidents.”.Further, the move of the Punjab Government has been termed as a “political response with an ulterior motive to dismantle the foundation of the verdict given by the Supreme Court.”.The petition also refers to the annulment of judgments by the legislature and argues:.“That the legislature cannot directly annul a judgment of a court. The legislative function consists in “making” law and not in “declaring” what the law shall be. If the legislature were at liberty to annul judgments of courts, the ghost of bills of attainder will revisit us to enable legislatures to pass legislative judgments on matters which are inter- parties.”.The matter will now come up for hearing on July 24..Read the Petition and Order
The Punjab and Haryana High Court yesterday issued notice to the Government of Punjab, in a petition filed by the NGO ‘Arrive Safe Society’ challenging the Punjab Excise (Amendment) Bill 2017..Two months after the Supreme Court’s ban on sale of liquor 500 metres from National and State Highways, the Punjab Assembly has passed the Punjab Excise (Amendment Bill) 2017 amending the Punjab Excise Act, 1914..The Bill has been passed to enable hotels, restaurants and other notified places near highways in the state to supply alcohol circumventing the Supreme Court order..A Vacation Bench of Justice Anita Chaudhry and Justice Harminder Singh Madaan has now sought the response of the Punjab Government as to why the amendment made by it should not be stayed until a final decision..The Petition, filed by the President of Arrive Safe Society, Harman Singh Sidhu, has alleged that the Punjab Government has brought these amendments just to dodge the Supreme Court orders. The petition further alleges that the amendment cleverly tries to distinguish between ‘sale of liquor’ and ‘supply of liquor’..Clause 18A of the Bill defines sale of liquor as “transfer of consideration by a liquor vend for consumption by a purchaser at a place other than its premises” and clause 19A defines supply of liquor as “provision of liquor for consideration at clubs, restaurants, hotels and other places on the basis of licenses issued on the condition that it shall be consumed within their premises”..In this regard, the petitioner Society in its petition said:.“As per the impugned amendment the sale is different from supply and is meant to be consumed within the premises. However, Supreme Court was aware of these tantrums regarding consumption in premises and consumption off premises and thus they passed the direction to cease granting of licenses for sale of liquor.”.The amendment uses a very vague term of “notified place” and permits the sale of liquor at such notified places, hotels, clubs and restaurants..The term “notified places” would definitely be misused to mean a ‘tavern’ as a notified place and the judgment of the Supreme Court as also the intent with which it was passed in National Interest would be diluted..Alleging that the amendment is in clear disregard to the directions of the Supreme Court, the petitioner society said:.“If the impugned amendment is allowed to operate then liquor vends camouflaged as a restaurant/ hotel or club could be found everywhere along the highways without any consideration of public health, public morality, public peace, and would resultantly lead to traffic chaos, health hazard and frequent road accidents.”.Further, the move of the Punjab Government has been termed as a “political response with an ulterior motive to dismantle the foundation of the verdict given by the Supreme Court.”.The petition also refers to the annulment of judgments by the legislature and argues:.“That the legislature cannot directly annul a judgment of a court. The legislative function consists in “making” law and not in “declaring” what the law shall be. If the legislature were at liberty to annul judgments of courts, the ghost of bills of attainder will revisit us to enable legislatures to pass legislative judgments on matters which are inter- parties.”.The matter will now come up for hearing on July 24..Read the Petition and Order