The SC told the Centre and all state governments to consider imposing prohibition as, “We don’t need an indolent nation.”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre and all the state governments to consider imposing prohibition as it observed, “We don’t need an indolent nation.”
“It is a notorious fact, of which we can take judicial notice, that more and more of the younger generation in this country are getting addicted to liquor. It has not only become a fashion to consume it (liquor) but it has also become an obsession with many,” said a Bench of Justices S B. Sinha and P K Balasubramanyan.
“We do not need an indolent nation,” observed the Bench while allowing a Maharashtra government’s appeal against a Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) order that had stayed levy of license fee ( Rs.2 per litre) for rectified spirit and (Rs.3 per litre) extra neutral alcohol obtained to manufacture Indian whiskies.
The Nagpur Distillers would pay 50 per cent of license fee and the rest if their writ petitions were dismissed by the HC. This amount would be kept in abeyance pending a final decision by the HC.
Reminding the governments of their various constitutional obligations under legally unenforceable Article 47, the Directive Principles of State Policy, the judges said, “It appears to be right to point out that the time has come for the state and Centre to seriously think of taking steps to achieve the goal set of the Constitution.”
The Apex Court also wondered as to why the state should encourage the trade in liquor? It however underlined the need of revenue for any government. “What is more relevant here is to notice that the monopoly in the trade is with the state and it is only a privilege that a licensee has in the matter of manufacturing and vending liquor,” Judges said while referring to the Maharashtra legislation that controls sale and trade in liquor.
Scrapping the HC order that resulted in loss of revenue for the state, the Bench said the HC should have “paid a little more attention to the interests of the state and the consequences arising out of its order staying the payment of fee.”
“It is trite that government cannot run on undertakings. It has, therefore, become necessary to interfere with the order of the HC, though normally, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with interim orders,” they added.
){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}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}