http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHAM LAL ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: IUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/08/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. DESAI, D.A. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1484            1979 SCR  (1) 159

ACT:      Punjab Excise  Act 1914-Section 59(f)(v). Punjab Liquor Licence Rules  1956  Rule37-Effect  of  Amendment  by  State Haryana-Desirability  of   neighbouring  states   to  follow uniform policy in  regard to prohibition.

HEADNOTE:      Rule 37  of the  Punjab Liquor  Licence Rules  1956  as amended by  The State Haryana, made the Ist and 7th of every month a  holiday for  liquor shops  The petitioners assailed its validity.      Dismissing the writ petitions: ^      HELD: As  Haryana and  Punjab are  neighboring  States, identical days  of teetotalism  have to  be declared in both States failing  which the exercise in prohibition will prove futile, at  least in  the border  districts. If the days are different in  the two  States a massive trek of the drinking population from  the border  districts of  one Stale  to the other would ensue, thereby defeating the statuory purpose. [ 159H,160A-B]      P. V.  Kaushal etc. v. Union of India etc. [1979] I SCR 122, followed.      (For appearance refer to pages 125-126).      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

JUDGMENT:      KRISHNA IYER,  J. The  State of Haryana, like the other States of  India, has  on its statute book a legislation for liquor regulation  and fiscal  levy. In fact, it is the same as the  Punjab Excise  Act, 1914.  To bring  in  progressive restriction in  the sale  of alcohol, rule 37 was amended in Haryana making  the 1st and the 7th of every month a holiday for liquor  shops. This  rule and  the statutory  source  of power to  make rules,  namely, s.  59(f) (v)  of the  Punjab Excise Act,  1914, have  been  challenged  before  us  on  a variety of  grounds and we have heard counsel on both sides. The arguments  being identical with those already considered by us  in the  Punjab batch  of writ petitions that judgment governs these  cases also, and therefore we annex it to this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

judgment and  we do  not think it necessary to launch on any additional discussion.      A few  other submissions,  which hardly  merit  mention were made we do not deal with them.      one cautionary  signal we  would like to sound. Haryana and Punjab are neighbouring States and unless identical days of teetotalism 160 for the  liquor shops  are  declared  in  both  States,  the exercise in  prohibition will  prove futile, at least in the border districts.  If the  days are  different  in  the  two States, there  will  be  a  massive  trek  of  the  drinking population from  the border  districts of  one State  to the other., thus  defeating the  statutory purpose. We hope that liquor lobby  notwith standing,  the State,  will streamline the ’dry’ days in both the States.      For reasons  given in  writ petition Nos. 4021-4022 of‘ 78 etc., We dismiss the present batch of writ petitions with costs. (One hearing fee) . N.V.K.                                  Petitions dismissed. 161