THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS versus K. BALU AND ANR.
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 665, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
665
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS
v.
 K. BALU AND ANR.
 (MA Nos 489-491/2018,  366-368/2018, 392-394/2018, 395-397/2018,
388-390/2018, 1543-1545/2017, 1546-1548/2017 and 1549-1551/2017)
IN
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166 of 2016)
 FEBRUARY 23, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Liquor –  Sale of  – In the order passed by Supreme Court on
11.7.2017, it was observed that the purpose of the directions
contained in the order dated 15.12.2016 is to deal with the sale of
liquor along and in the proximity of highways, which provide
connectivity between cities, towns and villages – The order did not
prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas – This Court
further clarified in the order that it will govern other municipal
areas as well – In the subsequent order dated 13.12.2017, liberty
was granted to the licence holders to submit a representation to the
state government that the same principle should  apply to the licensed
establishments of the petitioners, as they applied to municipal areas
– Having regard to these directions, the state governments would
not be precluded from determining whether the principle which has
been laid down by this Court in  order dated 11.7.2017 should also
apply to areas covered by local self-governing bodies and statutory
development authorities – 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 11.7.2017
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 –
665
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 665
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
The use of the expression ‘municipal areas’ in order dated 11.7.2017
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 – It  is left 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 – MAs/IAs   disposed of.
State of Tamil Nadu v. K Balu [2016] 11 SCR 244
: (2017) 2 SCC 281; Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh
v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh SLP (C)
No.10243 of 2017; APSRTC v. Abdul Kareem [2007]
1 SCR 888 : (2007) 2 SCC 466; Cine Exhibitions
Private Limited v Collector, District Gwalior (2012) 6
SCC 698; Hotel Sonai Beer Bar and Permit Room v
State of Maharashtra SLP (C)No 19845/2017 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 11 SCR 244
 referred to
Para 1
[2007] 1 SCR 888
 referred to
Para 4
(2012) 6 SCC 698
 referred to
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : MA Nos. 489-491/2018,
366-368/2018, 392-394/2018, 395-397/2018, 388-390/2018, 1543-1545/
2017, 1546-1548/2017 and 1549-1551/2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-
12166 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2013 and 28.03.2013
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 23773 of
2012, M. P. Nos. 9 and 10 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 23773 of 2012.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv,  Roy Abraham, Ms. Seema Jain,
Ms. Reena Roy, Himinder Lal, P.N. Goswami, Ms. Pranita Shekhar,
Pawan K. Sharma, Shashi Ranjan, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Dr. Manish
Singhvi, Satyendra Kumar, Shailja Nanda Mishra, Irshad Ahmad, Ashutosh
Dubey, Krishnendu Sarkar, Ms. Rajshri, Abhishek Chauhan, V. S. Rawat,
Sushil Pandey, Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Ms. Anandini
Kumari, P. V. Yogeswaran, R. B. Phookan, Ms. Neha Tandon, Shailesh
Madiyal, M. Yogesh Kanna, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Nandini Sen
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
667
Mukherjee, Ajay Marwah, Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for the Appellants.
S.S. Shamshery, AAG, C. L. Pandey, Sr. Adv., Ms. Binu Tamta,
S.S. Rawat, Hemant Arya, G.S. Makker, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh,
Ankit Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Manish Kaushik,
Ms. Ananya Pandey, Dipesh Sharma, Yash Pal Dhingra, G. Prakash,
Jishnu M. L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash,
Vijay Shankar V. L., S. Thananjayan, Kaleeswaram Raj, Suvidutt M.S.,
Ajay Marwah, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. This batch of MAs/IAs
arises from the judgment dated 15 December 2016 rendered by this
Court in State of Tamil Nadu v K Balu1and the subsequent orders
dated 31 March 2017 and 11 July 2017.  The last of the above orders
was delivered in -----Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v The Union
Territory of Chandigarh 2.
2. Though the reliefs which have been sought in the individual
MAs/IAs may differ, during the course of the hearing there is a broad
consensus that for the purpose of the present proceedings, it would be
sufficient if this Court were to interpret paragraph 7 of the order dated
11 July 2017.  Paragraph 7 is extracted below:
“7. The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15
December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in
proximity of highways properly understood, which provide
connectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order does
not prohibit licensed establishments
within municipal areas. This
clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We have
considered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at rest
any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs, before
the Court.”
3. Learned counsel submitted that the expression ‘municipal areas’
in the above paragraph was not intended to exclude areas within the
jurisdiction of local self-governing bodies. Many of them, it is urged,
may be developed in a manner similar to municipalities. Others, may be
geographically proximate to an urban agglomeration. Hence it was urged
 1 Civil Appeal 12164-12166/2016
 2 Special Leave Petition (C) No.10243 of 2017
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. v. K. BALU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
that an appropriate direction may be issued to obviate uncertainties in
application, occasioning the need for repeated recourse to this Court or,
as the case may be, litigation in the High Courts.
4. The application has been opposed by one of the contesting
intervenors who placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in APSRTC
v Abdul Kareem3 and Cine Exhibitions Private Limited v
Collector, District Gwalior4. It has been urged that an application for
modification or clarification of a judgment would fall within the realm of
a review and hence the present applications would not be maintainable.
5. Dealing with the above objection, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the applicants submit that they seek neither a review nor a
modification of the orders passed by this Court.  The attention of the
Court was drawn to an order dated 13 December 2017 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos 964/2017 and 1050/2017 in the following
terms:
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it
appropriate to direct that each of the petitioners shall submit a
representation within three weeks hence, stating that they are
entitled to be governed by the principle as applicable to the municipal
areas/MIDC developed areas. The individual facts shall be
mentioned in each representation. The same shall be considered
by the competent authority and decided, keeping in view the
judgments of this Court, preferably
within four weeks from the
date of receipt of the representation. Needless to say, the
representation shall be decided by ascribing reasons and recording
a finding. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they can approach this
Court. With the aforesaid directions and liberty, the writ petitions
stand disposed of.”
The submission is that it will suffice if permission is granted to the
state governments to determine whether the applicants and similarly
placed individuals are governed by the principle which was laid down by
this Court in relation to municipal areas.
6. In Cine Exhibitions Private Limited (supra) a bench of two
learned Judges comprising of Justice KSP Radhakrishnan and Justice
Dipak Misra, (as the learned Chief Justice then was) held thus:
 3 (2007) 2 SCC 466
 4 (2012) 6 SCC 698
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
669
“Generally an application for correction of a typographical error
or omission of a word, etc. in a judgment or order would lie, but a
petition which is intended to review an order or judgment under
Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in criminal
proceedings except on the ground of an error apparent on the
face of the record, could not be achieved by filing an application
for clarification/modification/recall or rehearing, for which a
properly constituted review is the remedy. (Id at page 703-704)”
In the present proceedings neither is the Court called upon to
review its judgment nor to modify its orders. In fact reliance has been
placed on the orders passed by this Court on 11 July 2017 in Arrive
Safe Society(supra) and subsequently in Hotel Sonai Beer Bar and
Permit Room v State of Maharashtra5 and the connected writ petitions
referred to earlier.
7. In the order passed by this Court on 11 July 2017, it was
observed that the purpose of the directions contained in the order dated
15 December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in the
proximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivity
between cities, towns and villages. Having regard to this object it was
noted that the order does not prohibit licensed establishments within
municipal areas. Indeed, in order to ensure that the order is uniformly
understood across the country, this Court clarified that it will govern
other municipal areas as well.  In the
subsequent order of this Court
dated 13 December 2017, liberty has been granted to the licence holders
to submit a representation to the state government that the same principle
should  apply to the licensed establishments of the petitioners, as they
apply to municipal areas/MIDC developed areas (in relation to the State
of Maharashtra).
8. Having regard to these directions, we are of the view that the
state governments 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 developed   as   to   warrant   the   application   of the
 5 Special Leave Petition (C) No 19845/2017
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. v. K. BALU
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
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.
9. With the above observations, the MAs/IAs shall stand disposed
of.
Devika Gujral
                   Applications disposed of.