Kharkhoda Civil Court: In a suit filed by the Bar Association, Kharkhoda regarding the public nuisance caused to litigants, lawyers, and other stakeholders due to the opening of a liquor vend and other eatable handcarts in front of the main gate of the Judicial Court Complex (‘Court Complex’), the Single Judge Bench of Vikrant, J., held that it was just and rightful to issue an ad-interim restraining order against the running of the liquor vend which was being run without adhering to the provisions of the excise policy. Accordingly, the Court restrained the liquor stand from functioning with immediate effect till the next date of hearing.
Background
The petitioner contended that public nuisance was being caused to the litigants, lawyers, and other stakeholders because of the opening of a liquor vend in front of the Court Complex. Furthermore, unsocial elements would remain gathered in front of the main gate of the Court Complex and Mini Secretariat, Kharkhoda. Often, such persons entered the Court Complex in an intoxicated state. Additionally, a large number of hand carts were permanently parked outside the Court Complex, selling unhygienic edible items to alleviate the liquor consumers. Empty liquor bottles and waste food were thrown in front of the Court Complex.
The petitioners further contended that the Municipal Committee took no action against any persons in this regard.
The Excise and Taxation Department (‘ETD’) informed the Court that a license was issued to the liquor vend named ‘Theka Sharab Court Complex, Kharkhoda’.
Analysis
Prima facie, the Court opined that identifying the Court Complex with a liquor shop was undignified vis-a-vis the sanctity attached to the Court of law, commonly called the ‘Temple of Justice’.
“It severely impairs the honour attached to the institution of the Judiciary. Naming a liquor vend as Court Complex Vend is disparaging to the institution of administration of justice.”
The Court stated that it was a policy matter and the ETD was competent to decide the location of a liquor vend, however, it must be borne in the mind all the time that naming a liquor shop location after any reputable institute, personality, or landmark of social importance might cause harm to the societal worth attached with such institution, personality, or landmark.
Upon an inspection of the liquor vend by the Court, it was found that the documents that were required to be kept at all times, i.e., the license and approved site plan, were not found. Further, the salesman at the liquor vend admitted that he did not possess or keep any license for the liquor vend or the site plan. The ETD contended that this was a breach of excise policy, and necessary action would be taken.
Further, the Municipal Committee informed the Court that no site plan of the liquor vend was passed by them. Neither any permission was obtained by the license holder, nor were the development charges of the shop paid.
The Court noted that as per the excise policy of the ETD, Haryana for 2025-27, as envisaged in Rule 1.2.2 and Rule 1.2.3, the licensee of a liquor vend which is situated within the limits of Municipal areas is required to make arrangements and seek necessary permission from Urban and Rural Local Bodies for opening the liquor vend. In the case at hand, prima facie, no such permission was taken.
Therefore, in such circumstances, the Court held that it was just and rightful to issue an ad-interim restraining order against the running of the liquor vend, which was being run without adhering to the provisions of the excise policy. Accordingly, the Court restrained the liquor stand from operating with immediate effect till the next date of hearing.
The Court directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Municipal Committee Secretary to ensure implementation of the Court order. The ETD and Station House Officer were directed to assist with the same.
Furthermore, the Court directed that the Municipal Committee shall ensure that the public road or entry to the public institution, including the Mini Secretariat and Court Complex, is not blocked by any unlawful parking of vehicles and carts.
Lastly, the Court listed the matter for 21-07-2025 with a direction to the District Excise and Taxation Commissioner to submit a detailed report of the action taken by them regarding the breach of policy and the fact of naming a liquor vend’s license as Court Complex Liquor Vend. After taking the report, this matter shall also be reported to the High Court on the administrative side because the matter pertained to demeaning the prestige of the institution of administration of justice.
[Bar Asscoiation, Kharkoda v. State of Haryana, CIS No. CS- 249 of 2025, decided on 18-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Kamal Sharma
For the respondent: Government Pleader Indu, AETO Abhimanyu, Pawan Rana, Sundeep Sharma, and Suresh Dahiya