HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 821/2025 CM No. 1954/2025 Anil Sharma …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. U. K. Jalali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Sawhney, Advocate. vs UT of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 07.04.2025 ORAL 1. The petitioner has challenged communication bearing No. 425- 428/Insp/URR dated 13.03.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to submit revised blue print for premises/location for operation of liquor-vend in accordance with the guidelines of Supreme Court/High Court with regard to the National Highway. 2. According to the petitioner, he after having participated in the bidding process was declared as H 1 bidder in respect of liquor vend located at Panchayat Pouni, District Reasi. 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. 4 issued the impugned Serial No. 142 2 WP(C) No. 821/2025 communication, whereby the petitioner has been asked to relocate the liquor vend, presumably on the ground that the location of the vend do not conform to the guidelines/orders issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding establishment of liquor vends alongside National Highway. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that operation of the liquor-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. 4. Issue notice to the respondents. 5. Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate appearing vice Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Senior AAG waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 6. 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 3 WP(C) No. 821/2025 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 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.” 7. 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 dated 24.03.2025 stated to have been filed by the petitioner (Annexure-IX 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 4 WP(C) No. 821/2025 of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this Court is made available to the said authority by the petitioner. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. Disposed of along with the connected application. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 07.04.2025 Sahil Padha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. Sahil Padha 2025.04.07 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document