Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed for quashing Clause 9.8.8 of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024-2025, to the extent that it prohibited the bars/ pubs in all other districts of the State of Haryana barring Gurugram and Faridabad from operating beyond 12.00 midnight, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma* and Sanjay Vashisth, JJ., stated that once the petitioners obtained the license under the said Excise Policy and were doing their business in the terms laid down therein, they could not turn around and challenge part of the said policy which did not suit them. Principle of ‘take it or leave it’ had to be accepted and applied in contractual matters. Where a person wanted to do liquor trade, he would have to accept the conditions as framed by the State. Change in excise policy for each year was well known to all.
The Court stated that no one had stopped the petitioners from doing business at Gurugram, if they found it to be more lucrative. The contention that the petitioners’ business was affected because of the change in the excise policy for the subsequent year was also found to be without basis, as the person carrying on liquor trade would know what was in store for him for the entire year. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.
Background
In the present case, the petitioners were granted L-4/L-5 license of bars/ pubs situated at Panchkula District, for the year 2023-2024. As per the Excise Policy of 2023-2024, the bars and pubs were to remain open till 2:00 am in Haryana, with the provision to further extend up to 8:00 am on payment of additional annual fee of Rs. 20 lakhs per annum.
Duration of the policy for the year 2024-25 was from 12-06-2024 to 11-06-2025. While the other conditions for grant of L-4 and L-5 license were the same as were in the previous policy, in Haryana Excise Policy 2024-2025 (‘the Excise Policy’), the respondents changed the hours of sale in bars and pubs, stating that the licensed bar for L-4/L-5/L-10E/L-12C/L-12G etc. would be allowed to remain open up to 12.00 am (midnight) in Haryana. However, the timings of the bar licenses in Faridabad and Gurugram Districts could be further extended up to 02.00 am on payment of additional annual fee of Rs. 20 lakhs per annum. Moreover, it could be further extended on payment of additional annual fee of Rs. 5 lakhs per annum for every additional hour in the said two districts.
Petitioner submitted that they should be allowed to get the timings extended up to 02.00 am on payment of additional fee of Rs. 20 lakhs per annum. Further they should be allowed to extend the time by hours in terms of the conditions extended for vendors, bar and hotel owners in Gurugram and Faridabad.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted the different restrictions and factors laid down in the Excise Policy and stated that the excise policy dealt differently for different licenses for different districts in the State of Haryana. The license holders of L-4 and L-5 of Districts of Faridabad and Gurugram and other districts including Panchkula could not be said to be similarly situated, nor it could be said that they were a singular class qua excise policy.
The Court stated that it was of firm view, and it was well settled that Article of the formulated class legislation. However, reasonable classification for achieving the ends of legislation would not violate Article of the . The Court stated that the petitioners were carrying on business of sale of liquor in their pubs and bars at Panchkula, and the persons situated at Gurugram and Faridabad could not be said to be similarly situated. The amount of license fee which they had to pay was different from what was being paid by license holder at Panchkula.
The Court stated that once the petitioners obtained the license under the said Excise Policy and were doing their business in the terms laid down therein, they could not turn around and challenge part of the said policy which did not suit them. Principle of ‘take it or leave it’ had to be accepted and applied in contractual matters. Where a person wanted to do liquor trade, he would have to accept the conditions as framed by the State.
The Court stated that no one had stopped the petitioners from doing business at Gurugram, if they found it to be more lucrative. The contention that the petitioners’ business was affected because of the change of the excise policy for the subsequent year was also found to be without basis, as the person carrying on liquor trade would know what was in store for him for the entire year. Change in excise policy for each year was well known to all.
The Court further stated that while the excise policy took note of social verification and and social degeneration at the time of framing the policies, it could not be remained unnoticed that, if the people were allowed to stay all night at bars and pubs, the social strain of Indian society was seriously hampered. The Court stated that while few of the Indian States have applied absolute prohibition and most of the States have laid down a time schedule for selling of liquor. Once a time schedule was laid down, there should be no provision for granting extension of the said time for the entire night by taking extra money. A balance had to be struck between the amount of revenue being earned vis-à-vis maintaining and nurturing the culture of the State. It was expected that the State should take into consideration our observations while framing the future excise policy.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present petition and directed that the copy of the present order should be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of State of Haryana for noticing the observations while framing policy in future.
[DA Bodega Hospitality v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 16332 of 2024, decided on 04-12-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate assisted by Shreya B. Sarin, Advocate, Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate, Manu Loona, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sharan Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .