The Kerala High Court on Tuesday severely criticised the State Government for its insincerity with regard to its own liquor policy even as the Intellig-ence wing of the Kerala Police warned of the possibility of a liquor tragedy in some parts as chemical-mixed toddy was arriving at outlets to overcome the demand-supply gap in the context of the closure of 418 bars.
The police’s Special Branch asked the Excise Department to be alert about the possibility of a liquor tragedy as toddy, mixed with spirit and hazardous chemicals which enhanced the ‘kick’, had reached several toddy shops, especially in the Changanassery region of Kottayam district in central Kerala.
Sources in the Excise Department said they were conducting regular and random inspections to ensure that spurious toddy was not being sold through outlets. There are over 4,000 toddy shops in Kerala. As many as 27 people had died in Kuttippuram in Malappuram district in September, 2010 after drinking coconut toddy mixed with heavy doses of methanol.
The Changanassery region has been found to be vulnerable as demand for toddy had gone up in a big way after eight bars in the locality were lying closed since April 1 as part of the Government’s move against ‘sub-standard’ liquor joints. The police have received information that spurious toddy was being brought from Palakkad district to fill the demand-supply gap.
On Tuesday, a division bench of the High Court questioned sincerity of the Govern-ment in its approach to the issue of liquor sales in Kerala. “The Government would announce a policy. Afterwards, it would act against that very policy,” the division bench comprising Justices Haroon Al Rashid and Anil Narendran observed.
The claim of the Government that bar closure was part of its plan to bring down liquor sales and consumption also came under criticism. If phasing out liquor was the intention of the Government, why was it issuing licences to new bars and why there was no move to bring down the number of retail liquor outlets, the court asked.
While considering a batch of petitions challenging the forced closure of 418 of the 734 bars in the State since April 1, the court said its decision to allot bar licences only to four-star and five-star hotels was not going to be effective as bar owners were influential enough to organize whatever star status they wanted for their establishments.
The court also questioned Government’s claim that bars were allowed to function as part of tourism promotion. If tourism promotion was the intention behind allotting bar licences what was the point in opening bars at every nook and corner of the State instead of allowing bars to function only in tourism centres, the division bench asked.
The Government said that its liquor policy would be ready by June 30 and that a decision on the future of the closed bars could be taken as per that policy within four weeks. The HC asked the Government to submit its liquor policy by July 7. 12 bar owners had approached the court challenging the closure.
A war has been going on over the issue in the ruling Congress since the 418 ‘substandard’ bars were closed on April 1. While Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and his ‘A’ group want the ‘quality’ bars among those closed to be reopened, State Congress president, posing himself as an anti-liquor crusader, is opposing this.