Sr. No. 155 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: WP(C) No.726/2025 Sohan Singh …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Moza, Advocate V/s Union Territory of J&K and others ... Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 25.03.2025 01. The petitioner has challenged impugned notice bearing No.ETI/ERS/370- 373 dated 11.03.2025 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner has been directed to identify another premises/location for operation of liquor vend in accordance with the J&K Excise Policy, 2025-26 read with bid document for e- auction of JKEL-2 vends for the year 2025-26. 02. According to the petitioner, he after having participated in the bidding process was declared as H1 bidder in respect of liquor vend located at Ghagwal Excise Range Samba. It has been further submitted that the petitioner pursuant to the allotment of the vend intended to operate the same from the same place wherefrom the previous liquor vend was being operated, but respondent No.3 - 2- WP(C) No.726/2025 issued the impugned communication, whereby the petitioner has been asked to relocate the liquor vend, presumably on the ground that the location of the vend falls nearby National Highway. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that operation of the vend by the petitioner at the designated location does not violate any order of the Supreme Court and that the impugned communication has been issued under misconception of facts, particularly when a liquor vend is presently operating from the same location. 04. Issue notice to the respondents. 05. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 06. The question that whether the operation of liquor vend from the location from which the petitioner intends to run/operate the liquor vend violates the order of the Supreme Court or any other guideline, has to be decided by the respondents in accordance with the directions dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in case of “The State of Tamil Nadu and other Vs. K. Balu and another” in Civil Appeal No. 12164-12166 of 2016. Para 8 of the said order is relevant to the context and the same is reproduced as under:- “8. Having regard to these directions, we are of the view that the state government would not be precluded from determining whether the principle which has been laid down by this Court in the order dated 11 July 2017 in Arrive Safe Society (Supra) should also apply to areas covered by local self-governing bodies and statutory development authorities. We are inclined to allow the state governments to make this determination since it is a question of fact as to whether an area covered by a local self-governing body is proximate to a municipal agglomeration or is sufficiently - 3- WP(C) No.726/2025 developed as to warrant the application of the same principle. In deciding as to whether the principle which has been set down in the order dated 11 July 2017 should be extended to a local self- governing body (or statutory development authority) the state governments would take recourse to all relevant circumstances including the nature and extent of development in the area and the object underlying the direction prohibiting the sale of liquor on national and the state highways. The use of the expression „municipal areas‟ in the order dated 11 July 2017 does not prevent the state governments from making that determination and from taking appropriate decisions consistent with the object of the orders passed by this Court. We leave it open to individual licensees to submit their representations to the competent authorities in the state governments if they are so advised upon which appropriate decisions may be taken by the state governments. We have issued this general direction to obviate both litigation before the High Courts and repeated recourse to applications to this Court.” 07. In view of what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforequoted Para, the present writ petition can be disposed of by directing respondent No. 2 to consider the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner (Annexure-XIII to the writ petition) in light of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court. The needful shall be done by respondent No. 2 within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the said authority by the petitioner. 08. Ordered accordingly. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE Jammu 25.03.2025 AKHILESH Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No