Acting on a petition filed by a Chandigarh-based NGO, Arrive SAFE Society, the vacation Bench, consisting of Justice Anita Chaudhary and Harminder Singh Madaan, issued a notice of motion and asked the state to respond on July 24, when it will again hear the case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has put Punjab government on notice for circumventing the Supreme Court order on ban on sale of liquor near highways.
The state government had passed the Punjab Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2017 on June 23, allowing hotels, pubs and restaurants situated within 500 metres of the highways to serve liquor within their premises. The amendment bypassed the SC order by making a distinction between 'sale of liquor' and 'supply of liquor'.
Acting on a petition filed by a Chandigarh-based NGO, Arrive SAFE Society, the vacation Bench, consisting of Justice Anita Chaudhary and Harminder Singh Madaan, issued a notice of motion and asked the state to respond on July 24, when it will again hear the case.
Contending that the Punjab government had brought the amendment to dodge the SC order, Arrive SAFE President, Harman Singh Siddhu said, "The SC order leaves no ambiguity in stating that the ban on liquor within a buffer distance is not only qua the liquor vends rather applies to all such places where liquor is sold within a vicinity of 500 metres of national and state highways."
Highlighting that the impugned amendment uses the term 'notified place' and permits the sale of liquor in hotels, pubs and restaurants, Siddhu said the term could be misused to mean a "tavern", thus diluting the SC order banning sale of liquor within 500 metres of the highways.
"If impugned amendment is allowed to operate then liquor vends camouflaged as restaurants, hotels would be found everywhere on the highways without any consideration of public health and frequent road accidents," he asserted.
Maintaining that the government had wrongly linked the menace of drunken driving with unemployment, Siddhu said several bars and hotels in Chandigarh had also approached the High Court against the liquor ban and linked their cause with unemployment, but their petition was dismissed by the Court.
"The logical reason for judgment was to curb menace of drunken driving, but the impugned amendment is not only in clear violation of the Court order but a bonanza for those who would enjoy the handy availability of alcohol and create nuisance for the rest," he said, arguing that the government should focus on safety and health of its citizens instead of working for benefits of the liquor lobby.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "liquor")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}